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."
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.
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.
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
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