Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Permissive License Meets Opposition
seven7h writes "Linux.com currently has an interesting story regarding Microsoft's new Permissive License, which they are currently trying to get certified by the OSI (Open Source Initiative). What I find interesting is not just that this has received a lot of criticism and opposition, but that one of the key opponents is Chris DiBona, open source programs manager for Google, Inc. Microsoft's strategies of creating open source like programs (ie Shared Source) has been called into question and whether the open source industry should become associated with Microsoft. This looks like it may be something to watch as it could allow Microsoft a foot in the door into Linux/Open Source, or define a line between Linux/Open Source and Microsoft."
Everyone does. That is why it is free. Abide by the GPL and anyone can play.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Exactly. Isn't this just Microsoft trying to get the open source world to play by their rules. Remember, one of the few ways Microsoft can take on Linux is to embrace first. Sue second. I'm really not sure. Maybe Microsoft actually wants to work WITH us on this one. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh, so a Google person is against letting MS projects in in the OS market? What a surprise! The company that has more than 90% of the market of information search? I want to eat the cake alone!
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Why is it interesting that a google employee opposes something Microsoft does?
I mean, those aren't exactly love seats being thrown out of Microsoft's office windows.
liqbase
Who the heck came up with the "permissive" license.. It just sounds so dirty.... I mean do I need to wear protection with this license?? Wait a minute... I think I know that answer to that one... :-)
I was going to write about the whole license, but my only criticisms are in section 3 of this license, so I'll only write about that.
Section 3
Part A.
I wouldn't add this clause, but I have no problem with it, I just think that it is redundant.
Some may argue that MS is just being explicit to protect their asses, and we'll get back to that later.
Part B.
FUD possibility: The patent clause only covers contributors, it doesn't include users. The community has every right to reject this license if it is handling such an issue improperly (any license before the OSI at the moment should be considering this issue).
I can understand the need for licenses that don't involve patenting, but patents in licenses should be made an issue among accepted licenses.
Part C.
This seems to echo part D, I personally prefer the language of part D.
Part D.
I may be missing a legal nuance, but the word complies in the phrase "... you may only do so under a license that complies with this license."
Upon reading that, I wondered what "complies" meant, and looked for a definition. Since I cannot find one, I will note that I have interpreted it several ways, and because of the ambiguity, I would avoid this license.
Part E.
An argument for adding part A of this section was that MS is just covering their asses. Notice the disclaimer? I think it isn't as explicit as it should be. Of course, I'm no lawyer, so my evaluation of this scenario would be discounted in a heartbeat.
But, what I can do is have Microsoft argue this for me. Vista, the most important product they have, and they definitely care about it, has a disclaimer section[google pdf reader] in it's EULA (obviously).
Page 10, paragraphs E, G and H of the EULA are equivalent to Part E of this license. In fact, the only part missing is part C of the EULA:
"This warranty does not cover problems caused by your acts (or failures to act), the acts of others, or events beyond Microsoft's reasonable control."
Of course, we could look at other parties' licenses. And if MS' lawyers think conventional disclaimers (in the FLOSS community) have redundant or problematic text, I'd be glad to hear their commentary (and for the sake of acceptance, I think they should publish it if they have not already done so).
IANAL, but I don't really have a big problem (with the exception of part 3D) with the text of the license, although I think it needs some cleaning up. I also appreciate the patent additions, and agree that more conventional licenses should look into incorporating this "feature."
I think MS is really trying to get involved with open source programmers with this license (as opposed to feigning).
From what I read in the article, this "Ms-PL" is just a generic copyleft license with built a built in grant of patents and no-warranty clause. Other than the fact that the license was written by Microsoft, I don't see anything possibly controversial about it.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
The pattern of Microsoft's development and distribution strategies has historically been to create a sickness - in the form of a defective technology - and present itself as the only cure. One of the best examples of this perhaps might be MS getting into the antivirus business.
That said, if Microsoft were to release code under an OSI approved license, it would be foolish to choose not to use it on ideological grounds alone.
Forget revolution, insurrection is where it's at. The more open code the better.
They have no choice but to approve it, unless they want to lose credibility, and change "Open Source" to mean "whatever they happen to like", rather than "a license that meets this specified list of objective criteria".
All of the objections raises are very pointless. For example, there was the objection to how it does not get along with some other licenses. Hello! The same thing applies to many of the already-approved licenses. The objections from the Google guy are even worse--they don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with the stated purpose of OSI. He's just using the mailing list as a soapbox.
Even if MS released software under GPLv3, I wouldn't touch it. I'm sorry but I do not care to use anything MS.
Taking "free" anything from MS seems to me like taking free candy from a predator.
I have done very well without using any MS products for the past 7 years.
So how does MS pay you? Is it per post or are you on a salary, maybe some kind of retainer? Do you get a deduction for a particularly obvious piece of astroturfing or does MS not care about quality. I guess if you can make a living out of it anybody can, how do I apply?
The real question here is if Microsoft are going to eat their own dog food, as the term goes, and actually use this license with software that they release. If they don't, we can safely say that it's all just a show.
This guy brought a turtle to my Mother at work and she brought it home for my brother to keep as a pet. It turns out it was a snapping turtle. One day he was handing it off to one of his pals and it extended its neck and bit my brother on the stomach then quickly extracted itself into the shell.
It stayed clamped on his stomach and we couldn't get it off. He was passing out because when he breathed it clamped down harder. They called an ambulance. Meanwhile he's in a recliner and one boy is holding the turtle in the air so it wouldn't fall over and rip the meat from my brother's stomach. Another guy was stabbing it with a knife but it didn't let go. Then the neighbor came in with a garden hose and started spraying it (he was a nutcase).
Anyway, my brother's friend finally grabs a hammer and knocks a perfect hole in the shell. Then the nutcase jambs the hose into the hole and the turtle's legs and neck came out and blew up like a balloon. It finally let go.
The ambulance got there a short time later and one of the paramedics, a young girl, refused to help my brother because she was mad about the turtle being killed. The other paramedic gave him a shot and loaded him onto a gurney and took him to the hospital.
Ever since that incident, when I see a turtle in the road, I aim for it--splat. No remorse.
I might be more willing to agree with you, if IBM hadn't already proven that argument incorrect.
Should i start to cry now or later :(
Sure they do. The OSI could reject a license fundamentally identical to another license simply on the grounds that license proliferation is a bad thing.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Well, you know what they say - a dozen times bitten, thirteen times shy. They've resorted to underhand methods so many times in the past, it's only rational to expect any action like this to be "a trap".
Abide by the GPL and anyone can play.
The GPL is not the only open source license out there and each license type offers particular limitations and freedoms. One of the best know alternatives is the BSD license which allows people to publish source code, but from what I can tell the main requirement is to keep the license and have attribution.
If we are talking the Linux Kernel then we are indeed talking GPL, but Microsoft is free to license their code as they see fit. As long as looking at the source code does not prevent you from writing a clone with independent code, this it is a good first step.
One other thing to note is that open source is not necessarily the same thing as a no cost solution.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I don't like MS much but I have to say I'm on their side in this matter. They are submitting licensees for approval not asking OSI to support or approve of their broader business model. OSI needs to present itself as an impartial organization that will render fair objective verdicts about whether a license counts as open source whoever submits that license.
Besides, I think it creates all the wrong incentives when we give MS shit for improving its relation with open source. Admittedly maybe I'm a bit influenced here by this post by Miguel de Icaza's blog but I do get the sense that MS is being treated worse just because they are MS. Of course it's only natural for people in the open source community to want to get back at MS when they can given how MS is treating them but in the long run I think giving them grief over their attempts to open source stuff just contributes to the perception in MS that open source software is a fanatical rabid anti-capitalist movement not reasonable people making software they can work with and make compromises to.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Well, when the guy with the hammer keeps hitting you in the head instead of fixing the hole in the roof, the next time he shows up you start thinking about calling the cops, even if this time he's carrying some nice roofing tiles.
The OSI should also consider if yet another open source license is really needed.
There are already 59 different Open Source licenses listed at OSI's site! The Open Source Licenses by Category page shows that some of those are non-reusable, superseded, retired or redundant. Nevertheless, one would think that if Microsoft is really trying to live up to the "Open Source" criteria, one of the numerous other, already-approved licenses would suffice.
We already have very liberal licenses, like the BSD, MIT and zlib/libpng licenses. Likewise, we have very restrictive licenses, like the GPL and the MPL. And we have some in the middle, like the Artistic license and the Apache License, 2.0. And then there are always the more corporate-esque licenses, like the CDDL and the Eclipse Public License.
If they're truly serious about release their software as Open Source software, then at least one of just those licenses should be sufficient. Otherwise, it would seem that they're just trying to be shit disturbers.
It is interesting that you mention the GPL, because that is exactly the target of this initiative by Microsoft. Remember, Microsoft isn't opposed to BSD licensed code, because they can use it all they want. They are only opposed to the GPL, which would force them to 'give away' their source code. That is what they called 'communist' and 'viral.'
Now, if you look at the license, it is indeed an open source license, and it can be used in conjunction with the BSD, Apache,or MIT licenses, but not the GPL. Thus, Microsoft creates this license, releases sufficient open source code to make people think twice about using the GPL (extend), and then once the GPL is dead, leaves the open source world (extinguish).
This is a very clever move, aimed at dividing the open source camp from the GPL camp. Currently they are divided in ideology but largely united in practice (as RMS says). Microsoft is aiming to divide them in practice as well. Personally I don't think Microsoft is willing to release enough code open sourced to make a difference, but time will tell. The next few years will be very interesting.
Qxe4
Why is Parent offtopic??? GP makes a relevant - though possibly inaccurate - comment about TFA, and P tries to correct that alleged inaccuracy.
I for one welcome...hang on???
Historically, Microsoft has often had alternative (often dishonest), motives for initiatives they put forward. Usually these revolve around dividing and conquering markets. The most likely ulterior motive here is to divide the OS community by carving off the GPL and FSF people (the only license the MS-PL would not play well with), and to maginalise individuals like Richard Stallman in particular.
I predict that if the MS-PL license is accepted and MS becomes part of the OS community, from that day forward the general understanding in the press/media will be that there are two different camps of open source. "Serious" (business-related) open source, and "Flaky" (left-wing FSF open source). The very fact that the second group is open about the ideological basis of their movement will work against them as it does in the political realm as well. Both camps are actually just as ideologically based as each other, but only the FSF is up front about it.
While this over-simplification of the field into two camps may be spurious, Microsoft is driving public perception here as they always do. All those folks that have never really thought seriously about open source at all will suddenly "discover" it because MS is into it, and their perception of the playing field will be defined by Microsoft's participation and seen through the Microsoft "lens" on open source.
I would expect all the major tech media outlets, especially the mainstream/popular ones, to jump right on this interpretation, in the same way as they jump on all Microsoft pronouncements. I also can't think of a single reason why any of MS's Enterprise customers or any large corporation for that matter would not also be happy in that camp. Even great open source supporters like IBM would probably much rather prefer it if the FSF were "just a bunch of kooky hippies" that no one had to worry about anymore. This kind of perception could be hugely popular, and not just with Microsofties.
As a long time left-wing kookie hippy I am not in favour of this, but I can certainly see how wildly popular this could be to large chunks of the open source community. This is classic Microsoft divide and conquer stuff and I can't see any reason why it won't work like a charm.
decent if not exceptional licenses MS could use, we don't need another. Once again, why does MS need to invent their own version of everything (game consoles, digital media players, graphics APIs, etc..). Past experience has shown they release their own version of something in order to subvert (at least) or take over (most often) that product/protocol/market segment. Why is anyone shocked that people are greeting this with suspicion?
I mean, how on earth can a company with $7B to spend on research hope to accomplish anything when anonymous people on message boards start criticizing them?!?!
Got a clue for you: if MS *REALLY* wanted to play nice with the OSS community, they would. Yes, there would be complaints and verbal attacks, but eventually the community would accept them.
Just remember - it worked for IBM (who at one time held the exact same position.)
Now I know everyone loves google but other than using open source products what exactly have they done to help out the community?
Microsoft says that Linux "violates" how many Microsoft patents?
Microsoft paid how much money to SCO for a license Microsoft doesn't appear to use?
Microsoft arranged for Baystar to invest how much money in SCO?
And the list goes on and on and on.
Microsoft can, at any time, download the source code for almost EVERYTHING in "Linux". And they can write whatever apps they want that "interoperates" with whatever in "Linux". And they can release it under whatever license they want.
But we aren't seeing that, are we? And the reason is that Microsoft's goal is to find some way to cripple Linux as a competitor. That's it. That's all it is.
So we should be wary of any and all "changes" that Microsoft wants. Keep the distinct and separate from Linux.
Were any of the other OSI approved licenses submitted by a company with Microsofts history and provable intent to subvert the very definition of 'open' in OSI?
Just because a known hostile is being polite and playing by the rules; that doesn't mean you should lay down and let them trample you.
One of the functions of the OSI is to limit the number of licenses that programmers need to learn how to deal with. Unless a clear and convincing argument is presented for a new license, that alone should suffice for rejecting it.
OTOH, I must also admit that I am suspicious of this license in particular *BECAUSE* it comes from MS. MS is a company with a history, and not one that would cause one to wish to associate with them. This could, possibly, be as open as it superficially appears. But it could be that there are subtleties that aren't apparent. I wouldn't even know how to start to check, except by looking at the history of the company offering it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The OSI doesn't even correctly track the licenses that it has "approved" already.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
How about a diagram showing the progression of license restrictions? Hmmmmmm? That way you could look at the chart and SEE where a specific license falls.
It would also show any holes that are not covered by a license yet.
Then it would be easy to draw a line and say "anything below this line is GPLv2 compatible". Or GPLv3 or whatever.
Instead we have licenses that effectively duplicate each other. And we argue over whether Microsoft's proposed licenses are "okay" or not. Instead we should be able to look at the proposed license and see exactly where in the matrix it falls and whether it is filling an existing void. Or simply duplicating an existing license's restrictions and grants.
Where's the structure?
Yes because as everybody knows, if there's one thing that can stop a multi-billion-dollar corporation in it's tracks, it's a bunch of whiny geeks!
Considering that the OSS community, almost by definition, actually is just a bunch of whiny geeks...
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Well, when the guy with the hammer keeps hitting you in the head instead of fixing the hole in the roof, the next time he shows up you start thinking about calling the cops, even if this time he's carrying some nice roofing tiles.
lol. Now there is an analogy I hadn't considered. Quite funny. Thank you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...but not the GPL.
No license but the GPL can be used in conjunction with the GPL. Heck, not even different versions of the GPL can be used with the GPL!
There are some "compatible" licenses, but that's merely a euphemism for relicensing. If a license allows to to relicense the software under the GPL, then it is compatible. If the MIT license, for example, said that you couldn't file off the license, then it would no longer be GPL. The GPL is a members only club.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Poor Microsoft. They try so hard to fit in. They make three licenses, two of which contain a clause saying that you can only run them on MS Windows, and for some reason they aren't embraced into the community!
Just remember - it worked for IBM (who at one time held the exact same position.)
Actually, most of the flack IBM caught was for being stuffy corporate drones - all the straight faced guys in perfectly pressed black suits, white shirts, and black ties. They were generally considered to be more laughable than nasty - the big, slow, heavy dinosuar in the world of fast, sleek mammals.
Completely different creature.
AT&T was the evil one in the view of most of the people in the tech community. Remeber that they're the ones who were basically trying to kill BSD, though I suppose you should thank them in a backhanded way for making Linux as popular as it is (since the legality of BSD was in question at the time).
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Well, maybe they can reject it on the grounds that there is another licence, proposed by the same entity, that have almost the same name and is as far from Open Source as one can get.
If that is not enough, they can notice that the entity proposing both licences has an historic of misleading the public against Open Source.
Rethinking email
You just not supposed to see it. Do you think they are running their Oracle Servers on Windows 2003? I have actually been in the Hotmail server room, guess what. It's all Solaris on Sun in the backend. Has to Patents, whats stopping them from adapting open sourced code now and using it? They have to admit that they can't seem to get Vista off the ground. The market for it isn't there as long as XP or Linux is around. Bad Press from the real Press (not a bunch of whinny jerks on slashdot) hasn't been helping but their own licensing scheme of having 50 different versions isn't helping.
The overall trend is toward a UNIX-like OS, Apple has already done that. Linux is now common enough in the public mind set. The underpinnings of UNIX that run Linux, Solaris, Apple etc are all using better gear earlier then Microsoft. Solaris has been a 64bit OS since when? When did Linux go 64bit? Apple?
Attacks on Linux or some master plan to kill off the OS are mostly the product of wet dreams from someone with a massive chair throwing ego. Or a Delusional blogger. Take your pick.
As to licensing, well it's a start. You can't expect their lawyers to change their ways quickly.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Although I understand your points, we must remember that we are talking about a license, not content. Even if the license was acceptable (which I do not believe it is currently), we still can reject the copyright holder. Personally, I would not look at any material copyrighted by MS. I could see them claiming that I've been contaminated, and thus forbidden to develop my own software in a similar field.
As for your community division fears, what is stopping them from doing that now? In fact, if we consider the Novell deal, they already are dividing the Linux community.
Finally, I don't think the OSI can do anything about public perception outside of the technical community anyway (I don't even think FLOSS sympathetic managers would care). And MS would probably get a free pass in any press that mattered, so why would they bother with all this work?
OSI needs to present itself as an impartial organization
The OSI's impartiality and pragmatism will be its downfall. Like the sky-diver without a parachute, the OSI will keep saying "it looks OK so far" until it's too late. Microsoft isn't just any old party.
There is a fundamental difference between the normal FOSS world and Microsoft's world: the first is cooperative, whereas MS is competitive, or even combative.
Microsoft consorts with open source (but not with Free Software) because it can see a way to first stand on its shoulders, and then stomp it into the ground. That's how MS works. It doesn't have a cooperative bone in its body.
The OSI doesn't have a means of defending itself against that --- it pretty much assumes that everyone is cooperative if they make their source code visible, without taking into account that some parties have malicious intent. Well MS's view of the OSI is probably "There's a sucker born every minute". It's not going to end well for the OSI.
As far as the FSF and GPL are concerned though, Microsoft siding up to the OSI will probably work in their favor. By distancing themselves from the GPL and then shafting the OSI, Microsoft might well achieve the closing of ranks between open-source and free software camps, once the OSI's very dead and post-humously humped corpse is plain for all to see.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Uh, I can see two main reasons to object:
1. The license only applies to works created to work on the windows operating system. As far as I know no other Open Source license is limited to a particular OS.
2. The license preamble states that you must accept the license to use the software. As far as I know no other open source license makes such a statement (a license covers DISTRIBUTION of software - not use). Granted, I'm not 100% confident that no other open source license contains use-only restrictions, but I think this is the case. GPL3 contains use restrictions, but I believe they only apply if you distribute.
The role of the OSI is to certify licenses that comply with the OSI guidelines for open source licenses. I understand that people don't trust Microsoft. Either do I. However, to reject a license based on who is proposing it rather than the content of the license would put lie to "open" in open source. Eventually Microsoft will adapt, and that will involve working with the open source community. They will also continue to compete.
Microsoft isn't like the Borg; there isn't one hive mind but rather thousands of individuals, some to are more friendly to open source than others. This creates internal frictions within the company in terms of determining strategy. Perhaps we should be supporting elements who are trying to move towards open source? Some have tried to make the point that Microsoft are undermining the GPL with this license, but if they wanted to do that they just need to make code available under a BSD style license.
This license is far more interesting, in that it deals with the patent infringement issue. After reading this license and separating the fact that it was prepared by Microsoft from the content, I feel that it is well written and worthwhile. There are fights we need to win against Microsoft in the area of file formats and their patent infringement claims. However this is not a good reason to reject good licenses.
"Now, if you look at the license, it is indeed an open source license, and it can be used in conjunction with the BSD, Apache,or MIT licenses, but not the GPL."
And the GPL cannot be used with any of the ones you've mentioned, since, once the GPL makes changes, the others can't benefit from them. It might shock you, but some people in the non-GPL OSS world feel that way about the GPL.
"hus, Microsoft creates this license, releases sufficient open source code to make people think twice about using the GPL (extend), and then once the GPL is dead, leaves the open source world (extinguish)."
And because it's an open source license, nobody will fork the code provided MS stops developing it, right? Weather or not they can change their license terms at any point, they still give away what is released before that point. Then ultimately it's a test of weather or not FOSS can best MS at their own thing.
"They are only opposed to the GPL, which would force them to 'give away' their source code. That is what they called 'communist' and 'viral.'"
They're forced to give away their code with any open source license. That's the whole point of OSS, or did you forget that?
"his is a very clever move, aimed at dividing the open source camp from the GPL camp."
Sure, but when Sun releases code under the CDDL with which the GPL is incompatible, it's okay, they're going open, after all. But it's bloody murder when MS does it. Right.
The Open Source camp and GPL camp have always been divided. Otherwise, why would we have the BSDs under BSD licenses, and OpenSolaris under the CDDL, amongst others? Or is the GPL side's view too obscured by their ivory towers to notice, or care that the GPL just isn't for everyone?
Stop chasing every little piece of cheese Microsoft throws in the maze.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Chris DiBona of Google Inc. has asked the question if the OSI license submission ment that Microsoft would "stop using the market confusing term Shared Source." While I disagree on several things, I think this question deserves a reasonable answer. Rather than answering the question, instead Bill Hilf provided the excuse that "the reasons we continued to call it the 'Shared Source' program was to acknowledge that these licenses had not been approved by the OSI." [1]8 5:200708:mkohfpmjekmjelobgffa
.
Based on what was said by Bill Hilf, a project covered under MS-CL or MS-PL should be referred in Microsoft marketing as a "Shared Source" application. But with the Sharedpoint Learning Kit, covered by the MS-CL [2], the term used by Microsoft is "open source application." [3] Independent of approval by the OSI, Microsoft has already pre-approved it's use of "Shared Source" and "open source" as interchangeable terms in a way that appears to be an attempt to purposely confuse. This could even be seen as a method to disrupt the moment that the previous open source terminology had gain in the popular press. Regardless of the intention, Microsoft's use of SS and OS as interchangeable terms is not consistent with Bill Hilf's claim.
.
So, this leads back to DiBona's question which is still left without a reasonable answer. Will Microsoft stop using the marketing term Shared Source as a method to confuse? If Microsoft is serious about working with the OSI, why is SS already used as an interchangeable term before the OSI has even approved the licenses?
.
[1] http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:133
[2] http://www.codeplex.com/SLK/Project/License.aspx
[3] http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/choice.mspx
"What I find interesting is not just that this has received a lot of criticism and opposition, but that one of the key opponents is Chris DiBona, open source programs manager for Google, Inc. "
From reading the OSI discussion list, DiBona is virtually the ONLY person raising criticism and opposition. This summary is widely innacurate.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
"1. The license only applies to works created to work on the windows operating system. As far as I know no other Open Source license is limited to a particular OS."
You're showing your ignorance. MS has 5 shared source licenses.
MS-PL, MS-CL, MS-LSL, MS-LCL, MS-RL. You're referring to the MS-LPL and MS-LCL, which are not on the table for OSI approval. Only MS-PL and MS-CL are at issue.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Microsoft can't take a shit without getting criticised for not wiping to everyone else's liking.
Granted, it's been years since I've seen someone truely happy about MS, but this is beyond ridiculous.
CAPTCHA: cuckoo
cuckoo indeed.
IANAL (for Entertainment purposes only!)
Here are two clauses from the license
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
[...]
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
I am pretty sure that this license (or at least some software under the license) will not be accepted by Debian, which is slightly stricter than the FSF and the OSI. If the software includes a trademark, it must be included when distributed in either modified or unmodified form. If there is trademark a trademark, it is probably non-free. Remember, the trademark may even be an image, not just a small copyright statement.
Therefore, distributing software under this license that contains a trademark will have non-free components that are not removable. This is the same reason that Debian rejected the GFDL as well as the some of the issues with the Firefox/Iceweasel thing.
Now, for the FSF,
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
If removing a trademark or logo can be considered an improvement to the program, you are not allowed to do it. This means you cannot improve the software. I bet this makes it fail FSF approval. Again, IANAL, just speculating here.
Now, before I am blamed for being off topic, here is a relevant OSI section,
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
I am getting more desperate here. This is similiar to the FSF thing above. Assuming the trademark or logo is not free, you will be unable to modify it.
I probably don't know what I am talking about, though. The BSD advertising clause (requiring that the software contains a notice that it was developed at Berkley, etc) was still accepted and considered free (and annoying), and it is very similar to this logo/trademark thing.
(I posted this at Linux.com, as well.)
This license is full of technical problems, the least of which is the attempt to eliminate the MIT/BSD license "ambiguity" about whether alternative licenses can be used with it.
It may sound like I'm biased, but, like most Microsoft products, it attempts to enable a quick and simple implementation by implementing the obvious, but wrong elements of the theory.
Start with the name.
Permissive? Relative to the license, it is not permissive at all. No other license can be mixed in -- no perl artistic license, no GPL 1, 2, or 3, no Apache 1 or 2, no Mozilla, no BSD/MIT, not even a plain "Do with it what you want and I don't give a wooden nickel!" one liner license. At this point, I'm not sure even public domain source could be mixed in without opening a project that uses this Microsoft Permissive License up to lawsuits.
Relative to the source code, it is way too permissive. Anybody can join Microsoft's commune, so to speak. Anyone that can bring all contributors to the table, anyway. It's all a ("happy?") playground where everyone plays under the gentle gaze of the original authors who claim the original copyright of the original source code. For practical purposes, forks won't work well.
(Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.)
Freedom and openness are _not_ permissive. We are clear, are we not, that the GPL is by no means permissive? You are allowed to use the software only under the principles of protecting everyone's freedom to use the software. They way the license structures the limits and grants gives project leaders the authority to maintain their natural stewardship over the project while allowing _freedom_ minded individuals and groups to join in.
One way they can join in is to fork the project, but the license provides the framework for a clean fork. You can legally move on without leaving your source behind you, and that is a huge part of the freedom.
Even the BSD/MIT licenses are not truly permissive. The apparent ambiguities effectively allow room for project leaders to maintain their stewardship, and allow room for clashes to result in project forks.
The BSD/MIT licenses also technically allow "darkening" a fork, where a user refuses to pay his natural duty to the community by contributing back his or her changes. But the license provides no inherent leverage for the dark forks to use against the open forks. The license also allows the natural consequences of darkening a fork to occur. (Darkened forks naturally tend to wither away.)
(This "Microsoft Permissive License", on the other hand, will effectively work agaist project forks, and will effectively work in favor of keeping project leaders in charge way beyond their time.)
Again, the apparent permissiveness of the BSD/MIT licenses is in comparison to the radical pseudo-traditional idea that source code should be closed from public view. (Closed is actually very permissive, because whatever was done was done behind closed doors, and the guy with the biggest pocketbook got to play with whomever whenever with relatively few social consequences.)
The terms of the Microsoft Permissive License are inverted. The limitations are stated after the grants, which is going to make for some really difficult-to-untangle legal arguments.
The use-at-your-own-risk warning almost appears to not be there, which is probably appropriate for Microsoft's sales machine, but is not at all appropriate for the end users.
The grants are not complete. In the end, your lawyer is going to be telling you, you can't do that more often than not, preventing the implementation of useful features which is one of the primary benefits of truly open licenses.
The patent protection clause is a club, not a shield. Very one-way.
The above is just a start. Like I said, it is a typical product of Microsoft, implementing the wrong stuff simply, to sell to the unwashed masses.
joudanzuki
Microsoft has a long history of anti-competitive behavior - look at how they've dealt with Stacker, Lotus, Netscape, DR-DOS - the list goes on and on. This is their history, and provides a good indication of their future behavior.
Now they're trying to make nice, put on the "open source" show and offer to interoperate with Linux? They're going to lay down their knives and cuddle up to the biggest threat to their continued domination?
Anyone that believes that Microsoft is sincere in their offer to open source their code - or work along with Linux - is (pardon me for being so blunt, but) a deluded fool. They'll prevaricate and make false offers as they try to find a chink in the armor - then they'll move in for the kill. Remember, they offered deals to Stack, Netscape, etc, etc. and every time it ended up badly for their "partners". Why believe that this time will be different? They're just trying to use the OSI rules against open source - will stupidity allow the MS camel to insert its nose into the open source tent?
I agree in general though I would state there are instances where a license could meet every criteria but still hurt Open Source in general, I feel that's part of the reason that we have a credible organization like the OSI to give approval. All of the objections raises are very pointless. For example, there was the objection to how it does not get along with some other licenses. Hello! The same thing applies to many of the already-approved licenses. The objections from the Google guy are even worse--they don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with the stated purpose of OSI. He's just using the mailing list as a soapbox. He does seem fairly biased but I do think some of his objections have merit. For instance the term "Shared Source" can cause confusion, if Microsoft does get approval it's possible that they may start taking about their "Shared Source" licenses, and mention this particular "Shared Source license is an approved Open Source license by OSI" which could suggest that Shared Source is Open Source. Not to mention in MS-PL PL stands for "Permissive License", PL is an extremely common abbreviation used for Open Source licenses and it always means "Public License", choosing that acronym and choosing "Permissive License" instead on serves to muddy the brand (I am extremely sceptical that is no coincidence).They have no choice but to approve it, unless they want to lose credibility, and change "Open Source" to mean "whatever they happen to like", rather than "a license that meets this specified list of objective criteria".
At the end of the day the question is why is MS writing its own license? I can only think of several possible reasons
1) They legitimately feel that none of the legalese for existing licenses work for them, I find this doubtful though I do note that their license is very short and easy to read (then again there might be a reason other projects feel they need the extra legalese).
2) They don't want to be releasing code under a pre-existing license belonging to someone else. This is fairly possible and understandable (particularly in the best case scenario where they do want to become a legitimate and major open source player), however for both 1 and 2 they could have done this without the naming problems.
3) This is just like every other interaction they've had with the Open Source community and is some sort of trap. This would best explain the poor naming conventions and continued shared source thing. I'm hoping it isn't a trap but the OSI needs to be super careful here since experience shows that Microsoft is up to something nefarious. And if the OSI can't get whatever changes or concessions it needs to make sure this isn't a trap than even if the MS-PL meets the legal definition than I believe they should reject it.
I stole this Sig
One of the casualties in the war, erm, Microsoft is waging.
Part A is not redundant in practical terms.
...) consider how it could be used (virally!) to extract patent agreements with Microsoft.
Part B only applying to contributors may not have been intentional, but it must be fixed or this license is unbalanced against the users, and is lacking freedom, even compared to MIT/BSD class licenses.
I had missed that in my first reading. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Other than that, it's one-way. It's a club, not a shield. It expresses succinctly all the evil ways a free or open software license can be explicitly crafted to interact with patents. If this license were to be widely adapted (I think not, but,
Part C is redundant with law in most countries. (Being able to alter copyright notices is tantamount to being able to claim other people's software for your own. This clause actually is probably necessary for practical reasons in the Microsoft world.)
Part C & D are not the same thing, of course.
Part D is about the freedom to use your own license on code that you contribute, and, yes, you are right to worry about the word complies. But an MIT/BSD class license (which this is trying to imitate) does not attempt to include such restrictions for very good reasons. Restricting the licenses allowed for contributions is going to make it hard to fork projects.
Part E reflects the use-at-your-own-risk clause in most free or open licenses, not to mention the limitations asserted in most non-free or closed licenses. One deficiency here is that it will be practically unnoticed. It serves less as a warning to the user than as an escape clause for the vendor.
I'm a bit more negative about this license than you are, but I agree with you about one thing: If Microsoft really wants to get involved, there is no need for inventing new licenses, or, indeed for inventing much of anything large and obvious.
The best thing for Microsoft to do would be to do what Apple did, maybe even use Apple's Public License, substituting Microsoft for Apple, if Apple's lawyers would let them. Start with FreeBSD and re-implement the most essential parts of the MSWindows UI on top of that. That would clean up a lot of legal problems as well as technical.
But I don't think it's organizationally possible for Microsoft.
Firstly, I would like to make clear that my license should not be confused with the GPL, MPL or MS-PL. The single character difference should be sufficient to prevent any confusion with other licenses.
The MSPL is designed to be similar to the GPLv3 as published by the Free Software Foundation. Unlike GPLv3 but like one of the other M.*L's (which nobody would ever get confused) the MSPL has been explicitly crafted with the sole purpose of disadvantaging software published under another recent OSI license submission. I hope that the OSI will remain as even-handed in its approval process when considering my license.
-- AC
There are some "compatible" licenses, but that's merely a euphemism for relicensing. If a license allows to to relicense the software under the GPL, then it is compatible. If the MIT license, for example, said that you couldn't file off the license, then it would no longer be GPL. The GPL is a members only club.
That's not really accurate. What the GPL says is that the whole work must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. Neither the MIT, BSD or any other license I know lets you "file off the license", in fact it very clearly says The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. It is simply that the MIT license is very permissive and lets you distribute it in a way that gives you all the rights of the GPL.
Think of it this way, you're building a house and the BSD parts say you can use them in any building. The GPL parts say the whole house must be blue. Is that ok? Yes, because you can simultaniously fulfill the conditions of both licenses by building a blue house. You can't paint the BSD parts red anymore, but the BSD parts are still BSD parts. It is illegal (criminal offense) to replace a BSD license text with a GPL license text, unless you're the copyright holder. But as part of a house, the house needs to follow the rules of all the parts.
Of course the kicker is that the GPL says you can't add no more restrictions (good or bad), so you can put MIT code in GPL projects, but you can't put GPL code in anything but GPL projects. But that they can be distributed under the terms of the GPL is substantially different from them being relicensed to be GPL code.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I am pretty sure that this license (or at least some software under the license) will not be accepted by Debian, which is slightly stricter than the FSF and the OSI. If the software includes a trademark, it must be included when distributed in either modified or unmodified form.
No, a trademark notice.
A trademark notice would be something like "Windows is a trademark of Microsoft."
Which is totally different than actually using the trademark itself.
Reading Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License) I see nothing that requires the source code of the software to be distributed, as such Ms-PL is not an open source license.
I have read Ms-PL and OSD (Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) and also I've read the MPL (Mozilla Public License) just to compare it with.
OSD say: "2) The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form..."
Ms-PL only mention of the source code is: "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form..."
So one possible scenario: Ms-PL gets approved. Microsoft creates a program (they say under Ms-PL, so they get Open Source tag on it), then they distribute only binary form (no link or method to get access to the source code). Yes, the binary form is under Ms-PL so you can distribute it and all that but you don't get the source code.
Why is this a problem you say, if they don't provide the code then nobody else will contribute code.
Problem is that they will be able to tag some products as "Open Source".
The very meaning of the word "open source" suggest that you have access to the source code of the software.
One thing that I agree with the submitter (Jon Rosenberg) is that Ms-PL is indeed short (compared with GPL or MPL).
The pro-BSD and pro-GPL folks have been sniping at each other for years now.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
And how does FSF pay you? Is it N number of thrusts of RMS's cock down your throat and up your ass per hour, or what?
( Sadly, in much of the English speaking world too. ) This infers that the 'people' who contribute to the original are neuters. Thus presumably mindless & unable to contribute anything of an intellectual nature. A better worded and less offensive clause would be:-
A "contributor" is any person who distributes her, or his, contribution under this license.
A rather sad reflection on the grammatical knowledge of the person who wrote the licence.
Now, read very carefully:
So i.e., if you use code from a project under this licence you may intermingle it with any other code merely by saying:- "Parts of this project use code licenced under the Microsoft permissive License, as reproduced hereunder", or words to that effect. You apparently do not even have to distinguish Ms-PL code from your code, if you did they would have used the word "contribution" rather than "distribution" in the above paragraph. Thus, in effect, Ms-PL code cannot be distributed when incorporated into pre-compiled object or executable packages such asI know that the business practices and code quality espoused by Microsoft have, in the past, been highly dubious, but let's just give them a moment to demonstrate that they have indeed seen the light and realised that being decent citizens is a better plan for the continued existence of their business.
We don't need more licenses. Don't we have enough?
What's wrong with, say, BSD instead of the Permissive License? And why shouldn't we have other vendors going all "me too" and saying we need a set of Google, Apple, Sun, Intel, HP, Lenovo, Joe's Smoked Meats & Fishes brand open source licenses? If all they become is a rubber stamp that says "this license fits a set of criteria you can read on our website" instead of "this license is actually useful and contributes something" then I might listen.
And I'm totally ignoring the fact that it's vague, introduces new incompatibilities where we were seeking greater harmony--you know, like how GPLv3 was made compatible with the Apache license? Yes, they DID get that into the final version.
So why do we need the license? Everyone is all focused on questions of bias and whether or not it looks "fair" and nobody seems to even give a damn about what this license is good for and why the existing ones aren't good enough.
In other words, the 'selfish' perspective is to want everyone else's code to be BSD or such but to release your own as GPL or such (of course the truly selfish perspective is not to release any open-source code, but as we can see even Microsoft is realizing that, for various reasons, open-source is unavoidable).
You know that Linux and the GPL does not represent open source, right? For example, there is BSD style open source, and Mozilla license style open source, and Educational Community style open source, there are purely NASA-style open source and a host of others?
In fact, when I read the OSI front page, I see this: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to build bridges among different constituencies in the open-source community.
One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the community. The Open Source Initiative Approved License trademark and program creates a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and governments can organize open-source cooperation. Nope, nothing in there about Linux or GPL.
So what do they (Linux and GPL) have to do with the topic, the article, or anything at hand?
Welcome to the World of Open Source! Everyone is welcome to come join in the....
What? Microsoft is coming? Hey, can you go flip the sign to "Closed" for a bit? No, they're already here? Ummmm, yeah I guess, well... we don't really want THOSE people in here though. I mean, they don't think like we do and will just stink up the place.
Look, we only serve GPL here buddy. You wanna buy some GPL, or you wanna go sit in the BSD section over there behind the curtain?
The nerve of some people! Thinking they can come in here and offer any old free license, as if we care about anything THEY say. Hmph!
Yes. We could replace all these articles with one general "Open Source community X doesn't like Microsoft's thing Y" or Slashdot could write nice template "Open Source community ${community_name} doesn't like Microsoft's thing ${microsoft_thing_name}" I think it would save some time. Slashdot could even add cron job to publish such article every day and dupe every saturday.
You don't know what you don't know.
It's a little late for that. Not to mention it would come across as disingenuous to say the least.
Okay, after a little sleep, I think I can give a better appraisal.
Name:
The license is named "Permissive". This gives us Microsoft's opinion on the sharing of ideas, I think. But we all knew already that Microsoft wants to live in a world where programs can't be shared without permission. Anyway, we'll see more evidence of their attitude as we go.
Introduction:
The license is declared to govern use. In fact, it begins with a shrink-wrap style clause. It asserts that, if you use the software, you accept the license. It doesn't mention legal fair use here, as is Microsoft's habit in such clauses.
Compare this to the GPL, which simply explains that when you fail to comply with either the GPL or with legal fair use, the GPL hasn't licensed your use. If you have no other valid license, your use is contrary to law.
What's the difference? In the one case, Microsoft asserts your participation in the contract of the license. In the other, the FSF informs you that you need a license for certain activities.
Section 1:
Definitions are invoked from copyright law. Contribution and contributor are defined.
"Licensed patents" are invoked using a legalese that I'm not sure was necessary. The definition seems to pre-assert, at any rate, that patents the contributor claims which "read on" the contribution are licensed by the contributor through the contribution. More implicit participation in the contract.
Section 2:
Get the grants out of the way, make forward reference to the limitations and conditions. It's a bit loopy, but when we read the language, we see that the structure may be dictated by Microsoft's attitude that it, rather than the contributors, directs the licensing. Or maybe that's just my interpretation.
Anyway, we see that the license is a contract such that contributors grant licenses to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute. It attempts to cover both copyright and patent grant, and I'm not going to argue with the effort at this point. Maybe later, maybe not.
Section 3:
Establish the limits, wrap up the forward references.
(A) Trademarks are a side issue. This is legally unnecessary here, but as a matter of practicality, it's probably a good idea that they point out that trademarks are a side issue.
(B) Punishment clause for bringing legal action over patents. Very narrow in application, which is probably a good thing if patents should apply to software. I had initially seen this as a one-way patent trap, but I think it's just narrow. I'm not sure it's too narrow to just apply to software patents, however.
(C) We finally get to what is the second clause in the Berkeley copyright statement, an explicit prohibition on attempted copyright claim jumps. It also includes patent, trademark, and attribution notices, probably essential, given the rest of the structure of the license.
(D) License restrictions. Seems very strict. Maybe.
Source code can only be this license. That may not be so bad, however, as the license does not appear to force an extension to the whole body of work in the case of inclusion. I'm not sure that it would even prevent mixing with GPL, if (and only if) we could be sure that inclusion does not extend the scope. I'll have to go re-read the GPL about compatible licenses again, however, to be sure.
The license for binary code must comply with this license, but the license offers no definition of compliance. That's a huge problem for binary distribution, as others have noted, but not insurmountable in some special cases.
(E) The use-at-your-own-risk clause is too quiet.
Conclusion? Microsoft's lawyers are beginning to get the form, but still don't get the substance. Also, they don't understand the danger of attempting to be "cute". They are trying too hard to be concise.
Without clarification of 3.D, it is broken. Either you can't tell what is required of you, or you can't mix code under this license with code under any other license. Unt
Worryingly, this demonstration of the hopelessly naïve, enabling attitude that Microsoft rely on was missing the correct sarcasm indicator.
Or just maybe you are genuinely volunteering as the frog?
So when will you be welcoming convicted sex offenders into your neighborhood? Perhaps known terrorists should be allowed to enter the country so long as they meet standard criteria? If you can't find any bombs, the fact that their intent is to blow everyone up must be immaterial?
Still with me?
Denial will get us no where; Microsoft are clearly up to no good.
That conspiracy theory is just daft.
There is already a divide (if you hadn't noticed it's because the distinction isn't that important) between GPL and "BSD-like" minded open source developers, adding another license to the later bunch won't change anything.
that isn't the point. microsoft seem fine with the bsd-like licenses (just look into the contents of ftp.exe). they are against the gpl-like licenses, since they can't just give token credit to the original author, make their own.. er.. 'improvements' and close the code up to force difficulty in interoperability. the fact that bsd is an open license isn't under discussion here.
So what do they (Linux and GPL) have to do with the topic, the article, or anything at hand?
The same that a burglar caught in the surroundings of a house with an empty sack at night has with committing a burglary?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Microsoft has a well-earned reputation of foul play, and has been convicted of monopolistic practices in both US and European courts. As a result, all of their actions are assumed to be part of some nefarious plot, a position which has been correct time after again in their history. To assume them to break character and act in good faith would be foolish, especially since the results of such assumption could be catastrophic.
Microsoft is simply reaping what it has sown, namely Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I think they are permitted to drink from the Lunis's mule for exactly thirty seconds per zealot post they make.
Some of them are up to 24 hours a day already. Teh Lunis's jock is getting pretty crowded, with all the FOSSies fighting over it.
Microsoft gave how much money to Novel in order to fun Mono and push fwd the adoption of the .NET platform that would finally allow oss apps to run in windows, only smoother?
Microsoft is patronizing Novel and Migule de Icaza, Sliverlight, etc.
Why give them the opportunity to complain of unfair treatment? Or that the OSI is showing favouritism to the GPL?
By all means let's not approve any licence that explicitly prohibits bundling with other open source licences. Add to that the notion that we have too many licences anyway, and MS might have difficulty showing how their licence was sufficiently different to warrant certification.
But let's not have special rules discriminating for or against specific organisations or licences. Let's leave that sort of tactic to Microsoft.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
So if it's linked to Microsoft's own runtime, then that runtime has to be distributed under a compatible license?
"Thus, Microsoft creates this license, releases sufficient open source code to make people think twice about using the GPL (extend), and then once the GPL is dead, leaves the open source world (extinguish)."
Well said!
But as long as the platform or OS itself is closed, things are not too good for them.
Mono, Moonlight and such other are the things to keep a watch on. They could go either way. If PR goes bad, shut up and let users get comfortable with mono/moonlight.
If PR goes good (they do believe that will happen, since they still spend billions on marketing rather than good programmers), sue the hell out of Mono and Moonlight.
Do you think m$ is limited to existing laws on "Intellectual Property" - Patent and Copyright?
Hell no!
It is far cheaper to make a new legal theory altogether and get a law passed than to compete on technological merit. See their shareholder reports and do some smart guessing. And then estimate the hire price of legislation services. And compare the two.
Like take these new legal theories for instance:
"Shared Knowledge Ownership Rights"
"Special Public Domain Knowledge"
"Business Practice Knowledge Rights"
So watch for those new laws in the next few months if all else fails.
Why WASTE MILLIONS marketing linux when web2.0 and http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7027 allow dummy installation training?
What's the worst that could happen?
Has anyone noticed the judicious omission of the term "open source"?
Directly targeted at PR.
So that you cannot *today* say: m$ also is now adopting "open source".
They do not have the ready "shared source" stack to sell to corporates, unlike other FLOSS vendors.
If people start saying "open source has won" or "open source is now validated" *now*, business and IT managers will buy *ready* FLOSS stacks - NOT m$ stuff.
So, they will get ignorant coders to rewrite those stacks in m$ technologies.
Till that is done, they will keep up the other methods. FUD, loopholes, campaigns, etc.
Then, when enough shared source code is ready, they will come out with a campaign saying this:
"Shared source is now OPEN SOURCE! Another mighty act of benevolence from our beloved technology leader!"
Chief FUD Officer Neksjen SpinKing speaking:
"The GPL is the more restricive of licenses. It does not reward the programmer with freedom of his own code. We expect people to realize this fact and move to OUR better opensource model which gives complete freedom to the programmer to do as he/she wishes with their contribution.
We do not even expect those insane license maniacs at FSF to change their crippling GPL version 3. We fail to understand why no other industry leader stood up to the fanatical FSF! We will show the way open source is done! (But first, please *buy* our 'doze platform!)"
That kind of nonsense is all lined up. Probably six months, probably a year from now.
They will make it sound great just like the Ow! compaign.
They are going to sound exceptionally chummy and pally over the next few months. As it is, they are known for their legal and marketing skills and not for their technological capacities, for which they *have to steal* top programmers from competitors to produce anything durable and stable.
After the recent legal battle which PJ followed so closely, could we use the term "Spin Champ Officer" for anyone from m$ trying to make too much FUD noise?
And the tagline could be: "Shred Source - Too Good To Be True"
Why WASTE MILLIONS marketing linux when web2.0 and http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7027 allow dummy installation training?
IMO, the true Microsoft open or shared source initiative would be to open the source code of any popular and widely used *existing* application like .Net Framework Virtual Machine / MSIL source code
Internet Explorer source code
Win32 API source code
NT Kernel source code
Indexing Service source code
And if I am not asking asking too much,
Windows Automatic Updates and Windows Firewall source code.
Till even one of these sources is made open, no amount of press is going to make any open source community member feel even one bit secure or comfortable with Shared Source.
(opposite FUD?)
"There is another huge fundamental danger in developing Shared source code on the Microsoft platform - complete destruction of the Shareware System.
The Association of Shareware Professionals is a body of shareware authors, each of whom have spent weeks or months trying to secure their code against being cracked. They have likely also spent hundreds of dollars to buy expensive anti-cracking solutions.
If Microsoft pushes for people to write open source code, what do these shareware authors do?
They have to rewrite all their applications from scratch!
IMO, shareware authors should keep selling shareware and migrate to real time-tested truly open source platforms like Linux, OpenJDK (or Java), gcc, Eclipse, PHP, MySQL, Python, Perl and so on. And then use the services methodology to earn from *existing* FLOSS projects.
You really can make a lot of extra money off PHP based web applications, CMSes, Intranet applications and so on. Smart phones are also a big market with ready-to-use development systems present in true FLOSS like OpenJDK.
In a few rare admissions in press interviews, Microsoft has even asked of resellers and existing solution providers "to bear a little loss of revenue" in the transition to the next version of their operating system. I wonder what treatment the Share ware author community will get!"
Now that you have read the obvious opposite FUD, and now that you have read my admission of it being clearly FUD tactics, maybe you could read it one more time, please, even with that knowledge?
Why WASTE MILLIONS marketing linux when web2.0 and http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7027 allow dummy installation training?
"It's an effort to split the open-source community into two camps, one around the GPL and "ideology," and another around the BSD and MS licenses and "pragmatism." In time, Microsoft can just grab all the code from the BSD and MS license camps, incorporate it into its own products, break compatibility, and walk away from the whole thing. At the very least they get a lot of work done for free, at the most, they've killed the GPL, which is open-source's main weapon against proprietization."
Well said!
IMO, the major difference between the GPL and "more liberal" licenses is the fact that with GPL licensed code, nobody can walk away with your code, modify it and sell it without showing the code. They *have to* give the added code back for everyone.
With BSD-like licenses, they can simply steal your work and you cannot do a thing about it.
With the GPL, it is now possible to take a corporation (however huge) to court over non-submission of modified code. In short, the GPL *protects* the programmer *and* the user from any single evil commercial entity robbing the good work.
No other license than GPL does this one thing so well.
One other pertinent point is that if you are a programmer of one open source project, you are most definitely the user of a few other open source projects. If they were all (or most) rebranded (cosmetic changes) and sold in competition to the original code, you have the user freedom problem yourself.
So, if A uses B,C,D and B and D are rebranded, A cannot use the good features added to B and D because it is proprietary and probably locked in to the underlying platform as well!
Now if A also were to be rebranded, B,C,D cannot use the good new features of A.
Eventually, A,B,C,D all stand to lose and the corporation wins just as they would in closed source scenario. A will be happy ONLY IF B,C,D are GPLed. Likewise for B,C,D about A.
This discussion is far from complete or perfect, but at least think well about this. Programmers who are lazy enough to accept the "shared" and "permissive" licenses without properly thinking of the possible consequences, are doomed to feel robbed and cheated eventually.
This *isn't* reverse-FUD. Think carefully, search online.
For example, OS X uses BSD code and sells more than any of the BSD code contributors can sell BSD individually or as a group.
As a programmer or a small team, you simply have no resources to match the marketing and sales tactics that earn the corporations their billions. Your BSD-licensed code has no chance to fight a re-branded *cosmetically* improved version of your product, sold in competition to your own.
That should clearly explain why the GPL is better - with the GPL *everyone* earns, even the corporation, but it *keeps them honest*.
Why WASTE MILLIONS marketing linux when web2.0 and http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7027 allow dummy installation training?
How is it disingenuous for OSI to stop doing something that they now believe is harmful?
how to invest, a novice's guide
It depends. Is that before or after Microsoft submits a license?
AC:
Ugh yourself and see how you like it.
Yes I would care. A defective license is a defective license, whether it is Microsoft or someone else who creates it. We don't need a proliferation of licenses, and we especially don't need any more half-baked licenses like this one.
Microsoft is getting the kids' gloves treatment on this license, truth be told. I have seen similar attempts to "fix" the Berkeley copyright notice absolutely ripped to shreds by both the free and open camps.
Microsoft describes the grant relative to copyright as a "copyright license", which implicitly invokes the theories of intellectual property being more than a euphemism for rights in the marketplace with respect to trafficking in an invention or creative work.
Maybe I could have used another comma or something. But I did not say Theo lacks commitment to freedom.
I said that there are people who have strong personalities like Theo, but (in contrast to Theo) lack commitment to freedom, and I suggested considering how such a person would (ab)use this Microsoft Permissive License.
(I'm guessing Theo would not touch this license with a ten-foot pole.)
How we know is more important than what we know.
Given that OSI have been talking about reducing license proliferation since at least last December, my inclination is to say "before". I'm as critical of Microsoft as anyone, but I'd be just as critical of a vanity license from my employer as I would one from Microsoft..
how to invest, a novice's guide
Old histories have probably already noticed this (though I wonder if any have stated it publically).
Microsoft is doing much the same type of war planning that WWII Germany did prior
to invading France or co-opting Italy. first they send in spies and influence peddlers,
then achieve 'controlling influence' then setup a situation where they can march
right in (seemingly to save the day).
After the 'invasion' if the recipient country doesn't see "eye to eye" on cerain
matters, they are slapped rather hard (executions, purges, legal actions?).
Same situation here. Microsoft is now in the "join, trojan horse, kill it off" sort of plan.
Microsoft should be best viewed with utter suspicion or (at worst) not trusted at all.
Their business model is, coincidentally, very similar to the same ones being
used by "big content" (they very same guys who sue 14 year old kids of disabled mothers for
alleged filesharing on non-existant computers).
so, perhaps it is best to nip this one in the bud before it goes too far
and we are stuck with no solutions (or rights) at all....
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
and that is why it's bad for the code.
BSD doesn't stop a competitor from looking under your kimono without helping back, so it's bad for commercial developers.
The BSD is ONLY good for free programmers.
See, for example, MS not BSDing their OS.
Novell signed an agreement with MS regarding software patents.
Now tell us, how Miguel's opinions regarding MS (a business partner, I hasten to add again) may be seen as impartial or unbiased?
And this is before we forget about his efforts to promote technology that presents a real threat to Linux by muddling the murky waters of software patents in the US (or what, do you think that trying to emulate several MS technologies will not infringe in a patent?).
Miguel should continue coding and leave the political aspects to other people, he lacks credibility regarding MS because he clearly has tons of vetted interests there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can speculate about the infighting inside MS regarding FOSS as much as you want, the reality is that Ballmer has been brandishing their patents against Linux and that Ballmer has badmouthed Linux as often as possible.
We can't say we have not been warned, any movements MS do should be judged keeping the outbursts of Ballmer in mind (he is the one calling the shots, for bunnies sakes, he could have at least paid lip service to working with Linux and increasing interoperability, in which case talking about patents would be unfriendly and rude).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are many opensource licenses out there why do Microsoft feel they need to create 5 more ?
.. people are suspicious because they want their version to be certified? and people quite reasonably are suspecting a trap
So they don't want to use the GPL... fine use another licence there are loads already certified as opensource...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html#6 says that an Open Source license cannot discriminate against any "field of endeavor". Running stuff on non-Windows could potentially be seen as a field of endeavor, which would disqualify the "limited" license.
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
So even if Microsoft starts playing by the rules, they're still evil and wrong?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Richard Stallman (and I am just using him as an example of these types of thinkers), is out there actually telling the truth(!) to people and assuming that technical merit and "being right" (morally speaking) is going to win the day for the FSF. Nothing could be further from the truth. People generally will believe what they are conditioned and told to believe. What I am saying is that like a lot of these kinds of situations, the truth is somewhat irrelevant here, and perception rules.
While I believe that technical merit will always *eventually* win out, that might take longer than any of our lifetimes. In the short term, and in the current market, Microsoft will most definitely "win" this if they can continue to control perception and divide the community along lines that they determine.
The only time Microsoft ever play by the rules is when positioning themselves to better to fuck you over.