Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft License Goes to OSI But Not From Redmond
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that a Microsoft Shared Source license, the Microsoft Community License, was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for official approval, but it wasn't Microsoft who submitted it. The license it appears was submitted by John Cowan, who is a programmer and blogger and who also volunteers for the Chester County InterLink, a non-profit founded in 1993 by former OSI president Eric Raymond and Jordan Seidel. Needless to say, the OSI contacted Microsoft to see if it should evaluate the license anyway, and was told to drop it."
I wish there was more in thye explaination of microsoft saying drop it.
It would be interesting if they ever intended shared source to be anything other then an opensource riddin publicity show.
Actually it brings up an interesting point. If the license is public (kind of) then why can't anybody submit it? The OSI is supposed to judge the license itself not who wrote it or why. I am also curious to know why MS told them to drop it. Why harm would it have caused them if it was approved?
evil is as evil does
Honestly, what was the guy thinking?
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
#1...MS requires the license to USE the software. Most of the others only require the license to reproduce or modify + distribute software. They demand something, however small, just to USE the software as it's given to you. It's an EULA, not a license. Notice they think you don't have the right to even PREPARE deritive works without permission.
Section 3 part A looks simpler than GPL, but combine with part C looks like BSD... except Microsoft always keeps it's mits in your work and all the work that follows. Where as BSD and GPL the orginal author's say ends as long as your new copy follows the rules. And again, they following users would appear to be required to accept Microsoft's EULA as well. GPL binds no progam license to any company in this manner.
And of course, Microsoft has a more restrictive patent clause than even GPL 3. Where as GPL 3 says you must ensure you have patent rights, and grant rights to downstream users, it doesn't try to take away from you for suing somebody. I know there was talk, but it's not in the license. Microsoft removes your license if you think you need to sue them.. or even counter/cross sue in defense of them sueing you! So if this was to become widespread, anybody that MS sued would loose all rights to the 'community' software when they tried to defend themselves.
I do notice 1 glaring ommisson for a microsoft license... They didn't leave themselves the right to revise/extend/revoke the license at will they usually include in every other license they write. I guess they're not all bad.
You didn't answer the poster's question. You answered why MS wouldn't want it submitted, and how EU people might go about applying pressure to get it submitted. You didn't, however, talk AT ALL about why the OSI needs MS's go-ahead to review it, why it can't review licenses at the request of people other than the author of the license, or why the OSI can't even just spontaneously review licenses even without someone's request.
Why would it have to guarantee that?
Couldn't the OSI say "here's the text of the license as of today, this version is/is not certified open source."
If MS then went and changed it, that version would be different from what the OSI approved, and the decision based on the old version would cease to be valid. However, the old version of the license wouldn't suddenly become invalid.
There might be some confusion as to the naming of them, but I think that could be easily overcome. The OSI could say "The MS Shared Source License as of Aug. 22, 2006" is approved, and as long as MS didn't come along and make changes later and say it was as of Aug. 22, 2006, there should be no confusion. (I'm not sure if I would put that last thing beyond MS or not.)
They may define "Open Source" (which appears to be a trademark), but not necessarily open source - I'll leave that to a good dictionary. Also, it seems possible that some people might consider the members of OSI to be zelots themselves as much as say, Steve Ballmer would be for his respective cause.
#1...MS requires the license to USE the software. Most of the others only require the license to reproduce or modify + distribute software. They demand something, however small, just to USE the software as it's given to you. It's an EULA, not a license. Notice they think you don't have the right to even PREPARE deritive works without permission.
These are, in fact, necessary. The GPL is an interesting license for claiming that you don't have to accept it to use the software, but it's worth noting that outside of the US, using computer software is often an act which is protected by copyright law (because a transient copy is created in RAM), so you do need a license for it. Therefore, those of us using GPL software in non-US countries have to accept the GPL in order to use. The MS license is no different in this regard, but it is explicit about it, whereas the phrasing of the GPL is actually misleading in non-US countries, and could result in people using GPL software without a license to do so (e.g. because they refuse to accept the GPL terms but don't realise that where it says you don't need to accept them doesn't apply to them). MS's lawyers are probably more internationally-minded than the FSF's are.
You also need a license to prepare a derivitive work. Creating derivitive works is an act protected by copyright in many countries. It's good that the license grants this right.
The rest of your analysis does make it sound like a poor license, but these things you mentioned in the first paragraph really are useful to those of us who aren't in the US.
Organizations don't have to be an international standards body in order for people to respect their standards. There are many organizations, such as the ARRL and EIA/RETMA, that work this way, and some eventually gain status as an international standards body. Many engineering associations, such as the IEEE and SAE; and equipment manufacturers associations, such as ECMA, have gained international standards body recognition. If enough of the right people respect OSI standards, the OSI could also become an international standards body.