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.
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.
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.
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".
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:
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
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.)
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.
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?
...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!
(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?