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."
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!!
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.
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
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.
Well it's clearly an open source license, and a fairly liberal one at that. No problems there, and it would be capricious and dishonest for the OSI to deny the MS-PL the OSI certification - and in a realm based mostly on 'shut up and show us the code', the OSI, with no code to show, is lucky to have what credibility it currently has, so it really shouldn't be blowing it on some anti-Microsoft stunt.
Then again, I take issue with your last statement in some ways, because my spider sense is tingling with this license, and I'm not sure I attribute this to an honestly pro-Open Source stance by Microsoft.
See, the license is GPL-incompatible. In fact it's about the most liberal GPL-incompatible license going, suggesting that the incompatibility is it's key feature. You can use this as part of a an attack strategy against the GPL. For instance, if Microsoft wanted to use this license against Linux, what they'd do is dump a huge pile of useful code onto one of the BSDs, using this MS-PL'ed license. Then the BSD community says 'thank you', fixes up their BSD operating system code to work with the big pile of MS code, and makes it go. Microsoft then takes their code plus all the BSD code proprietary, embraces and extends and DRMs it and makes an unfree sooper-dooper version, none of this can be used in any GPL project and even the BSD-licensed chunks written by the community won't fit in any GPLed project (i.e. Linux) for technical reasons.
Of course, it might be aimed at some other market where there's both GPLed and permissive-licensed competitors to Microsoft, but you get the idea. I think the license as it is now might be used to drive a wedge between factions of the movement...
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.
If it gets approved, my guess is that they will loudly say that MS-PL is an approved open source license. Then they will release code under the MS-LPL license. Most people won't understand or see that extra L, and assume it's similar.
Of course, the MS-LPL is one of the worst licenses you can get (It can only run on MS Windows etc). They will purposefully confuse people with the distinction.
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
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
While I mostly agree with you, I also see where those who are highly suspicious of Microsoft (whether inside or outside of OSI) are coming from. Everything that Microsoft has ever done with respect to open source or open standards has been with the goal of slowing the adoption of and/or co-opting open source and open standards. "Embrace and extend" was official Microsoft strategy - take an open standard, develop some proprietary extensions to it, and make that the version Windows uses, putting the rest of the industry - which follows the true standard - on a weaker footing.
I'm not necessarily saying that was a bad business strategy from the viewpoint of Microsoft's narrow self-interest - it was obviously pretty successful - but it was bad for the industry as a whole, and was a a direct attack on open standards that everyone else had agreed to play by.
In addition, Microsoft has always most vociferously attacked the GPL. People remember words like "cancer" for a long time, as seen in the debate over the MSPL. Microsoft has never made any secret of its fear and loathing of the GPL, and its desire to destroy or undermine it, including through very concrete actions such as buying a SCO license to help SCO attack Linux. As TFA notes, code from pretty much any license other than the GPL can be combined with MSPL-licensed code. Coincidence, or explicit design? You make the call.
So, now we have Microsoft seeking OSI approval of the MSPL, and some people are looking at it and seeing a wolf in sheep's clothing, not helped by the fact that - MSPL notwithstanding - Microsoft does not seem to have really changed its spots with regard to FOSS, which is the main point that Chris DiBona seems to be making. The so-called "open" Office 2K7 document format and the attempt to get it on the standards fast-track is just the latest embrace and extend strategy, and at the same time they are doing that in an attempt to muddy the ODF waters/squash ODF, the are seeking OSI approval for the MSPL. With schizo behavior like this, it's really easy to believe that the MSPL is just another attack vector against the GPL, with Microsoft attempting to exploit OSI to advance its agenda.
Considering the past, it's no wonder that people are slow to trust MS when it produces an open-source license, especially one that appears deliberately constructed to be compatible with every major free license except the GPL. Submitting it to OSI is a brilliant political move, because as some have noted, OSI would lose a lot of credibility if the MSPL meets the standards but is denied because of its source. OTOH, if they follow the standards and the MSPL is approved thereby, OSI will still lose a certain amount of credibility in some quarters for approving a license which is (I believe correctly) perceived to be an attack on the GPL as much as a bona fide open source license.
That said, I think it's worth having constructive dialog with Microsoft, because to whatever extend they may be coming in from the cold (not much, probably; their open source moves are just positioning themselves to have survivability in a future where Linux and Mac have desktop parity with Windows), if we burn the olive branch instead of accepting it, they will certainly try to go back to their worst old ways. At the same time, this is still Microsoft we're talking about - a company that remains pretty hostile to open source in general and Free software in particular, long after even Sun has come around - so we need to proceed with caution. If it takes (a lot of) time to build trust with the FOSS community, that's no one fault but Microsoft's.
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
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
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
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?