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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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 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
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
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?
I cant think of a more reasonably way to do that than what they've done. The MS-PL and MS-LPL are identical (to my quick read at least), except the MS-LPL restricts it to the Windows platform. Again, their code, their right. Would you like someone trying to tell you what kind of license you can release code you create under?
And to say that MS-PL and MS-LPL are 'purposefully similar' in name to GPL and LGPL is just being either disingenuous or ignorant of the facts.
Let's look at some of the more popular, well known licenses supported by OSI, and how similar they are to the GPL and LGPL:
From Open Source Licenses by Category:
GPL
LGPL
MPL - Mozilla Public License
CDDL - Common Development and Distribution License
CPL - Common Public License
EPL - Eclipse Public License
ECL - Educational Community License
APL - Adaptive Public License
OSL - Open Software License
QPL - Qt Public License
LPL - Lucent Public License
Now lets look at the MS licenses:
MS-PL
MS-LPL
MS-CL
MS-LCL
MS-RL
And you know what? Either phonetically, visually, or statistically (length, similarity of characters in similar positions, etc), the MS license abbreviations deviate farther from GPL and LGPL than do the other open source licenses supported by OSI.
The MS- in the front of each really distinguishes them. Maybe twitter would like to chime and and suggest that they should all be M$-.
About the only similarities are:
They all end with 'L'. But this is true for pretty much every license at OSI, so nothing unusual there.
One of MS's licenses ends with PL. So do a great number of other licenses at OSI, nothing unusual there.
MS has adopted a modifier pattern to their licenses to make some of them 'Limited'. MS-PL and MS-LPL, MS-CL and MS-LCL for example. This is similar in style to what FSF has done with GPL and LGPL, though its arguable that the 'Limited' has a nearly opposite meaning of what the 'Lesser' in LGPL has.
So in short, when looking at the license abbreviations, compared to the population of other OSI supported licenses, we see that the MS licenses vary far more from the GPL/LGPL than other OSI supported licenses do.
Based on this, it appears that, quite the opposite of your claim, MS went out of their way to make their license abbreviations easily distinguishable from the GPL and LGPL.
There you go again with "it's their right", "you can't force them not to" and so on.
Given that nobody was saying it wasn't their right, and nobody has suggested that the government should force them not to, I'm just going to write you off as a troll.
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?