Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSI Asks Microsoft to Change the MS-PL

Posted by Zonk on from the perhaps-actually-make-it-permissive dept.

Xenographic writes "The OSI has identified two significant flaws in the Microsoft Permissive License, and is unlikely to approve it as an OSI license in its current state. Specifically, the OSI is worried about the way the MS-PL is incompatible with so many other OSI-approved licenses and how misleading that makes the term 'permissive' in the license's name. Now the ball is in Microsoft's court and they can choose to amend or withdraw it from consideration. From the article: 'The MPL is also particularly restrictive, and is uniquely incompatible with the maximum number of other open-source licenses, [president of OSI Michael Tiemann] said, noting that in its examination of license proliferation, the OSI had encouraged experimentation with license terms to encourage new ones to be written that were better than what currently existed.'"

8 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Same question as always. by mmcuh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because you can't say that a given license is either more or less permissive than any other. It's not a total order. Take GPLv2 and GPLv3 for example. If either of them were strictly more permissive, you would be able to relicense from one to the other. But you can't since the GPLv3 prohibits you from using patents to close off the code, and GPLv2 prohibits you from adding any new probihitions. Or take the XFree86 license and GPLv[2-3]. The XFree86 license requires attribution to a greater extent than the GPL, while GPL requires other things that the XFree86 license does not. Neither can be said to be "more permissive", because they require and allow different things.

  2. Re:Yes you can. by lordtoran · · Score: 2, Informative

    Public Domain isn't a license. It just means you release something without claiming a copyright at all.

    --
    Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
  3. Re:what's incompatible? by MrCopilot · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm still completely in the dark about why it's so incompatible.

    The snag is right here.

    This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

    This is where the incompatible part is. GPL and other govern only distribution not usage. Here is relevant part of GPL

    This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

    Now that is what I call Permissive. MS-PL is not a license it is a EULA. It is not permissive.

    Other than that, I am actually surprised at how Open this "License" is. Baby Steps to open source. I particularly like this bit, which I thought I'd never see from MS.

    (B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

    Under Conditions and Limitations:
    (B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

    Great First Draft. Tiny bit of tweaking and I would not shy away from code covered under this license.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  4. Google is your friend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Google for "gplv3 apache" then look at the very first link.

    Source:

    Apache License v2.0 and GPL Compatibility

    The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.

    Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2, citing the patent termination and indemnification provisions as restrictions not present in the older GPL license. The Apache Software Foundation believes that you should always try to obey the constraints expressed by the copyright holder when redistributing their work.

    (Excessive linkage in the original preserved.)

    So, as you can see, GPLv3 is Apache-compatible, GPLv2 is NOT.
  5. Re:what's incompatible? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2, Informative
    That is almost the only place in the license which talks about usage of the software. Apart from that, can you point out where it applies to a end user(except for the waiver of express guarantees)? The rest of the license talks about distribution. Also, GPL applies to end users. From the GPL

    in no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who modifies and/or conveys the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
    --
    This space for rent.
  6. Re:Same question as always. by MrCopilot · · Score: 2, Informative
    Why isn't there a chart of the various licenses ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive?

    You mean like this

    http://www.petefreitag.com/item/533.cfm

    or http://pgl.yoyo.org/lqr/

    or http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/opensource/

    or http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000833.html

    All found with a very cursory Search on Google. If these are not enough you could always open a little program called OpenOffice and create one. Given how many of the above are crosslinked, You could find any number of people to host it.

    I think though the proper place for your chart is probably at OSI itself

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  7. Re:what's incompatible? by MrCopilot · · Score: 2, Informative
    As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).

    That is a ridiculous claim. Liability would be subject to license terms. Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.

    The free to use clause is there to protect you from the author saying you were using his software illegally. It was distributed to you under the terms of the license. You cannot say it wasn't just because you disagree with the license. Under those terms there is no Liability. See post above.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  8. This from a guy who can't Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    > So the GPL no longer inisists that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be under the GPL?

    The mentions of that I see is no problem. Section 5 of the GPLv3:

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

    (Emphasis added.)

    What are those additional permission? Oh! They're extras that can be added or removed as needed. You know, like if you want to combine some Apache license code with the GPLv3:

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.


    Here's the GPLv3. Here's the GPL compatibility matrix.

    If you want to say they're incompatible, even though actual lawyers see no problems with compatibility, by all means, show us the problem, but I'm going to want to know what legal authority you base it on.

    Perhaps the law should make sense, but it doesn't. That's why smart people hire lawyers for their legal opinions, rather than reading the laws and making up their own mind about what they mean.