Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's New Permissive License Meets Opposition

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the many-years-of-animosity dept.

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."

10 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Linux by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone does. That is why it is free. Abide by the GPL and anyone can play.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  2. Why is it interesting? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

    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 :: faster than paper
  3. TFA says it all by Eco-Mono · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:TFA says it all by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See any of the many comments above. It's GPL-incompatible, almost certainly by design (since they basically make it as liberal as possible, but stop *just short* of GPL-compatibility).

      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.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:TFA says it all by JohnFluxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My complaint is the naming.

      They have released the MS-PL and MS-LPL, with names purposefully similar to the GPL and LGPL.

      The MS-PL is mostly okay, but the MS-LPL says the software can only run on MS Windows.

      I see this as an attempt to confuse the situation and muddle up the name space.

  4. If OSI is to retain credibility, it must approve by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The license meets every criteria for "Open Source" that OSI has published, and MS is following all the published procedures for approval.

    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.

  5. Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  6. Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    because any time Microsoft even tries to do anything even reasonably associated with open source, the OSS community shits itself and starts with all the Admiral Ackbar "it's a trap" crap. They don't even get a chance.

    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.

  7. Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. And ... ? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't really have a foot in the door, because any time Microsoft even tries to do anything even reasonably associated with open source, the OSS community shits itself and starts with all the Admiral Ackbar "it's a trap" crap.

    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.