Slashdot Mirror
OSI Approves Microsoft Ms-PL and Ms-RL
Russ Nelson writes "In a board meeting held October 10th and announced today, the Open Source Initiative approved two of Microsoft's software licenses: the Microsoft Reciprocal License and the Microsoft Public License. These licenses are refreshingly short and clean, compared to, say, the GPLv3 and the Sun CDDL. They share a patent peace clause, a no-trademark-license clause, and they differ only in the essential clause of reciprocation. Of course, Microsoft is not widely trusted in the Open Source world, and their motives have been called into question during the approval discussions. How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark? Nobody knows for sure except Microsoft. But if you are confident that Open Source is the best way to develop software (as we at the Open Source Initiative are), then you can see why Microsoft would both attack Open Source and seek to use it. It is both their enemy and their salvation."
Captain James T. Kirk: They're animals.
Captain Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Captain James T. Kirk: Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
Captain Spock: They're dying.
Captain James T. Kirk: Let them die!
"How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark?"
Extend, embrace.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can't see how a license that governs use rather than distribution can be considered open source.
I'm dissapointed in the OSI.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This is going to be quite interesting to see. One can hope that good things will come of this, but I honestly don't see it. Luckily, I'm not in a position whereby my mistrust will affect the outcome negatively.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark? Nobody knows for sure except Microsoft.
They have more than one bit in their brains to make decisions. Hence "open source" is not a knee jerk reaction to them, in a way that "Microsoft" is a knee jerk reaction to certain people in the community.
Open Source is a model, it's a tool, to achieve a purpose. A serious company doesn't shy to use the tools at its disposal, even if some simpler folk might find this contradictory upon first sight.
Hey! Who turned on the air conditioning?
then you can see why Microsoft would both attack Open Source and seek to use it.
I have two words for you: Embrace and extend.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This is contrary to any Open Source license I know of. The whole point of Open Source is that you can use the software in any way you want. You have to agree to the license only when you distribute. Microsoft is attempting to subvert OSI, just like it has already subverted ISO.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The Ms-PL looks basically like the same terms as the BSD/MIT license with a patent peace clause, and the Ms-RL looks like the same thing with a Mozilla PL-like reciprocal clause. Neither one looks like the GPL. That's an unalloyed good thing.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Microsoft is a marketing company. They would much rather have Microsft Reciprocal Licensed Linux VistaXP Edition than GNU-Linux. They can always sell their branded products to clueless managers while scaring them with patent threats against the other guys.
Microsoft is also a follower. They typically are behind the bleeding edge of technology but always attempt to buy up as much as possible and claim they "innovated" it. Microsoft research is a big exception, and I wouldn't doubt that it's people from Microsoft Research driving the new licenses as well.
Microsoft is also not entirely stupid; they intend to attract developers with their licenses not to release any Microsoft products under them, but to bring open source development onto Microsoft platforms. That, ultimately, is a war that open source can only win by having a fundamentally better product. If Microsoft opens its documentation and internals to developers, most of them will see fewer advantages in pure open source/free software systems. All Microsoft has to do to keep making money is keep Windows shipping on every PC shipped in the world. Even if they're forced by the market to open source all of Windows, they will still own the trademarks (and patents) and probably still ship Windows on a significant number of PCs. Most home users don't give a shit what they run and will happily buy Microsoft, especially if their formerly Linux-enthusiast friends now see Microsoft as an open source company.
In the end, cooperation really is the goal of free software/open source anyway. Destroying Microsoft would be a net loss for everyone. Microsoft slowly converting to an open/free development model is a scenario in which everyone wins. Who will care if they run Linux or Windows if both support Posix and Win32 environments using the best elements from each kernel? To be honest I don't think this is very likely; it's much more likely that the Next Big Thing will push the operating system question into the realm of questions like which general purpose sorting algorithm is the best.
If many of the old guard senior execs feel one way - and a newer junior VP who has his senior VP's protection feels another - then it's entirely possible for two parts of a large organization to act in two apparently conflicting ways.
That's simply the nature of large organizations. Once you clear a certain size, you can't have every decision cross your CEO's desk or they'll get nothing done.
How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark?
easy enough. look at sun(tm). if you can't define evolution, compromise. at least sort of.
nemesis. Home of an experimental fe code.
It's not that odd.
Microsoft is taking some providences to stand the day when its main product, MS Office, will loose the safe market share that Windows provides. It's for no other reason that Microsoft is making some good investments on robotics, health care, medical researchs, etc.
In this paradigm, where the added value cames from hardware or services, it's good to use (and abuse) Open Source products - the Linux being spread on mobile and embedded products tell us exactly that.
If the worst cames to happen, Microsoft has built an way out.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
read the fine print in the licenses. It forces a most likely illegal license change if you distribute. These are DESIGNED TO START LAWSUITS and tie up code and coders and companies, in unnecessary and expensive courtroom shenanigans. Your whole project gets changed if you use one stinking line with the new license! Which obviously will run afoul of other licenses. You can't have bits and pieces like you can with using gpl or bsd and lgpl, nope, you "agree" to only distribute under their license. Catch 22, you most likely can't, from the other license, hence, screwed, double hence, now the other larger project has to step in and defend their previous work and license, on THEIR nickle, not MS nickle. In warfare this is called a "false flag attack".
They should call this the guaranteed to poison license, it goes way beyond "viral".
"... the list of OSI-compatible licenses."
Why trim, when you can grow!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's answering a question posed earlier in the discussion, using an analogy. In fact, the applicability to Microsoft and open-source is right there in the comment. It looks like someone stopped reading halfway through the first sentence and tossed off a mod point.
It's interesting the attribution clause included on these licenses. We have many discussions about how manage attribution on open source projects. CPAL (https://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?cpal) license gave us some points to consider when talking about attribution. This license allows you to put a limited attribution on the software "copyright notice, short phrase (10 words), graphic image and URL." GPL 3 has it's own clause on attribution resources (see clause 7) The way Ms-RL Ms-PL describes how attribution will be managed has another aproach from the previous licenses: They require you to respect any attribution notices that the original work has. So here we have an OSI approved license which can be used to preserve all your attribution notices...
does anyone have any guesses as to what software/code they will be willing to release under these terms?
Ms-PL: BSD-like
Ms-RL: GPL(2?)-like
It'll be interesting to see what the FSF has to say on these.
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
If I ever become a pornographer I will distribute all my content under the Ms-PL or Ms-RL.
1. Definitions.
"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. Not only is this license approved by the OSI as open source, it is also considered to be a Free Software License by the FSF and is even compatible with GPLv3.
Open Source is not always FLOSS. It does not have to be free as in freedom. It doesn't have to be free as in beer either, unless of course you pirate.
In and of itself, all Open Source means is that the distributor does not hide the source from the outside world. No part of that says that you are legally allowed to either redistribute, modify or use the software, or do pretty much anything with the source other than just look at it. No privileges whatsoever given by copyright law are lost if you decide to show your source to the world (except a helluva tougher time to enforce those laws now that anyone can illegally take your code and use it in their own (closed-source) program without you knowing about it, but that's a different story).
A lot of security-related products make their source open for review so you know it doesn't have backdoors and whatnot, but that doesn't mean they let you to legally use or redistribute it without paying whatever fee they want.
FLOSS is a subset of OSS, but not vise versa. I'm also not saying one is better or worse than the other, just getting the facts straight.
Trademark Obscurity of "Open" "Open Source" "Open Standards" ... allows capitalist (L/FOSS-services/products-M$...) market competitors to take unfair advantage of market reputation which is indicated by the "Open" Trademark.
... others are diluting the very well recognized International Trademark value of "Open" which rightfully belongs to a core business model which promotes "Open" IPR (among many other things) in support of a global service industry, innovation, competition, and "Open" markets. The "Open" model is generally defined in part or total by the global L/FOSS community and the services provided, GPL/EFF/... providing legal standing and representation, Creative Commons protecting Artist property rights, OASIS with non-proprietary (no fee) standards ... much much more.
...), that the disruption/termination of the Trademark "Open" market value is central to defending and expanding M$/SCO/... hostage/proprietary market share.
... and proprietary marketeer insurgents (possibly in the "Open" blogs/communities) are acting friendly with spin-truth a/o faux-open dogma, because back-stabbing the meritocracy of a global "Open" innovative and competitive market community will leave the corporatist-welfare thugs in control of global economics.
... well can you come up with any better guesses as to why M$ supposedly likes the "Open" business model? Oh, if you say they want to be competitive ... yep-sure like a fycking US-Telco ... YDMF (don't bother me ..., I am in a role).
M$, OSI
M$ has proven, by all prior actions (US, EU
OSI and M$ are ethically wrong and have (as others in the past) egregiously injured the new "Open" capitalist and the dynamic competitive market value of the International Trademark "Open" [always with the cap "O"].
This is why M$, RIAA, Congress
Anyway, this is not a flame-troll, my averages on Seemingly Wild Ass Guesses (SWAG, I know...) are almost 50/50 without any psychic-spin. SWAG with psychic-spin drivel would give me a better than 3::1 guess advantage. Okay, I still cannot convince most folks
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I don't understand the scope or 'reach' of these licenses.
Suppose you spend some time coming up with a really clever algorithm and
want to patent and/or copyright it. (Even open source advocates
might want to create a copyrighted work in some cases, say for
a company you work for or to support your family...)
If you compiled your code with a compiler using one of the licenses,
would you be able to sue M$ if it stole your code?
If you played a M$ game or used a M$ program licensed under
one of these licenses, would it preclude you from ever suing
M$ for anything?
" "Buy him out", boys!"
Format Standards Committee "Grinds To a Halt"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/207205&from=rss
Posted by kdawson on 2007.10.16 16:42 Not a single ballot has passed since the OOXML vote closed. In the chairman's words, the committee has 'ground to a halt.' Sad to say, there's no end in sight for this (formerly) very busy and influential standards committee."
The M$ and global corporatist (not capitalist) intent is Kill "Open" AFAP (As Fast As Possible, AKA: AFAFP)!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
At the micro level you're correct, but Open Source strategy and OSI are pretty macro-level issues and Ballmer should be fully aware of what that strategy is. If someone has acted on their own accord, then expect them to be confused with a chair and thrown around a bit. If Ballmer truely is clueless about this then that is gross mismanagement on his part and you can expect a lynching at the next shareholder's meeting.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
May I politely interject here: motherfuckers for M$. Burn my karma please please please. Please do.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Examples? (put up or shut up.)
Even *Microsoft* doesn't believe THAT load of tripe. Go read the The Open Source Definition. A few cranks try to argue that Open Source can be used independently of the OSD, but the rest of the community shouts them down.
Errr, you're thinking of Source-Available Software. Open Source comes with a guarantee of compliance with the Open Source Definition.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=329843&cid=21004525
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
M$ licenses are simple because they are a lie. They don't have any intention to do anything but what they've always done: suck up your work and and screw you in court, the market place and public opinion.
The GPL is like good science, no more complicated than it must be for it's purpose. The goal of science is to understand truth. The goal of the GPL it to protect user freedom. If M$'s license is simpler than the GPL it's because they have other purposes for their licenses.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
What's mine is mine. What's yours is mine. If I see it, it's mine. If I want it, it's mine. If you like it, It's mine. If you say I can't have it, it's mine. I can just see Ballmer mumbling these to himself in a dark office in Redmond. Anyone honestly want to gamble anything of value that this is not just another paving stone in the MS path to world domination? Anyone? Thought not.
Organization? You must be joking..
Interestingly the OSI's Open Source Definition is derived from an attempt to define the FSF's 4 freedoms.
The lineage goes from the FSF to Debian (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines) to the OSI's Open Source Definition (which were mostly copied from the DFSG).
If you read the MS-Reciprical License and the MS-PL, you will see that they don't provide any restrictions on use, so this distinction doesn't really matter anyway.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is a way for MS to get some amunition against patent litigition. Just release the next Windows SDK with some core code licensed under the new MS-PL, make a huge "MS now Open Source" new splash, and wait until the first company that has a Windows product tries to sue them for patent infringement and welcome them with a big fat grin.
From the license:
(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.
isn not exactly the paragon of Freedom as in Free Speech either. As much as Debian may be a dysfunctional democracy, they are better at consistantly addressing this issue than the FSF.
Ever wonder why the GFDL has the invariant sections clause? According to Stallman himself (in a post to debian-legal), it was because he wanted to *force* the distribution of the GNU Manifesto with the Emacs manual. This essentially turns the ideal of free speech on its head by creating a situation where forced advocacy is accepted. When the then-main-architect of HURD criticized the decision, Stallman asked him to resign. If this is the sort of Stallmanist "Free Speech" we are to associate with Free Software, I want nothing to do with it.
Debian did the right thing and to this day considers any GFDL work containing invariant sections to be non-Free.
Note that I am not a Debina Developer, and I think that at the end we should think for ourselves and not be groupies of RMS or anyone else.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I thought Novell defined Evolution....
I mean, yeah, whatever, that's great, that, Google can distribute Linux from one department to another, but, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? If you believe that this is ok, then, what you are really doing is creating a defacto subsidization of service providers over software distributors.
That's actually -worse-. At least if you have a copy of Word or Windows, you can, when the DMCA lawyers aren't looking, go and tinker with both and sorta figure out how things work. You can control the installation of the software, and, above all, you can at least get some kind of clue to see if they violated the GPL.
You don't get any of that when someone uses a GPL behind the shield of a web service, or behind the shield of a corporate veil. In the grand scheme of things, if you are using a piece of software to enable a business - even in the back office, you are sorta distributing it... because you are copying the benefits that it provides. And, you give the users of that software no rights at all.
Honestly, I got nuked down to zero, but the intent of OSS is that software is a globally collaborate thing. Hiding behind web services and corporate barriers is not open and not collaborative, and therefor, I stand by my statement, even if not the letter, ALL OF YOU who are using this software at work without making the derived application publicly available are violating the spirit of the GPL.
This is my sig.
From a practical point of view, a license that isn't compatible with some version of the GPL causes problems. Did OSI really need to approve two new licenses that seem deliberately designed to be incompatible with any version of the GPL?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Compare the Slashdot headline to the fark headline:
Microsoft licenses approved as "official" open source by OSI. Overheard from Irony tag: "I see what you did there"
Most slashdot readers have no idea what Ms-PL and Ms-RL are, and a not-insignificant number don't know what OSI is. Wasting readers' time with opaque headlines that cause them to ignore interesting stories is something that should be thought of in terms of not doing it.
But if you are confident that Open Source is the best way to develop software (as we at the Open Source Initiative are), then you can see why Microsoft would both attack Open Source and seek to use it.
Legal immunity. In a legal battle the carnage of the ex-Windows programs would be the end of Microsoft. They don't dare enter battle. It's like the global nuke arms race. They don't dare pull the trigger as the destruction to themselves would be swift and complete.
They are getting a little body armor out of the deal. They need it.
The truth shall set you free!
First the MS-RL (MS-Reciprocal License, not the Reference License), applies to any of your files that contain the code.
The MS-PL applies only to the code you licensed. It is designed to be similar to the BSDL, requiring you to sublicense that code only under the terms of the original license, while you can license your *own code* under any terms you want. It is unclear whether or not this is GPL v3 compatible (there is some limited compatibility of both licenses with the GPL v2 provided that they are not ditributed as part of the same work). IANAL though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The patent rights go away (and you lose the right to *use* the software) if you breech the license.
:-)
THat is one thing I really like about the GPL v2
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
OMG i cant beleive nobody hasnt moded u up!!! ur post is like so informative!!1
theres like other stuff there to!! did u see that??
"Open Source" is somethng the OSI wants to try to suggest they can enforce but it has 10 years or so of generic use now and given that only a tiny fraction of open source licenses are OSI-approved, I somehow doubt that one couldn't argue well that the trademark had been diluted to the point of being worthless. IANAL, though.
Open Standards is clearly generic.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Closed Source is best if you are a software shop trying to make a profit.
Open Source is good if you are a student, or if you are a company that develops software to fulfill business needs, then other companies can join in on the development, adding the features they need.
...is that they are hedging multiple possibilities. If they can in the future use the licenses to cause confusion about motives, or because they have a bigger legal sleight of hand on their mind, I will not speculate. But I do think these are calculated, I do think questions about the motivation is valid, and in the end, if the licenses meet spec, they meet spec.
"Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?" --Bill Gates, "Open Letter to Hobbyists"
google, or any other web developer can modify GPL code without committing patches back to the community so long as they don't distribute the binaries outside of the company.
A lot of people are surprised by this. What I find more surprising are all the cases where you *are* required to contribute source back, if say you build anything on top of a GPL'd library (of which there are many).
Personally, as a user and a developer I don't find the GPL compelling compared to the BSD style licenses.
What is the effect of the patents that are not licensed?
The licenses say:
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
The FSF and other organization writing open source licenses don't deliberately complicate licenses. The reason their licenses are long is because the legal environment is complex and there are a lot of cases they need to cover.
You may prefer a "refreshingly short and clean" library, but only until you have a disturbingly lengthy and messy debate with a lawyer or a court about what the intent and meaning of that license is and the court decides that people could reasonably interpret the license differently from the way you intended. The appearance of simplicity and actual simplicity are two different things, in licenses as much as in software.
I think it's unlikely that Microsoft's licenses contain a deliberate legal backdoor. And OSI approval is a good first step. But those licenses are unproven in practice, have no history behind them, and haven't been analyzed carefully by a lot of people. Maybe they'll eventually turn out to be reasonable and sound, but for now, I'd stick with one of the proven open source licenses.
I think the Microsoft licences are really impressive. Short, easy to read, and it seems obvious to me why they were approved. These Microsoft licences would be a good first read for someone trying to understand more sophisticated licences, like GPL v2 or v3. In fact memo to myself to carry out that exercise, to see what the value-add of the GPL v2 is.
Perhaps the challenge should be to find an even short and simpler OSI compliant licence.
The licence is there, anyone can use it. I wonder how much barrier there will be to using a licence with Microsoft in the name, just because of that.
GCC and Bash are opensource, you can get them to run on ANYTHING you bloody well want too. So if you want to use code that only compiles under gcc then all you need to do is get gcc to work on your system. Have you checked how many systems gcc works on? Go ahead, I will wait. Wow, long list eh?
Now compare this with closed source, lets say C#, how many systems does MS compiler run on? Oh, only windows. Wow that was quick.
Same with their IE, it ain't the problem that IE does things differently, it is that nobody really knows and can't copy that behaviour. THe problem ain't that IE does things differently as such, it is that they don't publish how to do it, so everybody else is left with browsers that run their "enhancements" slightly differently and end up with messed up pages.
All your post has done is to show WHY opensource is so essential. Frankly if this is the best attack you can muster against GNU, then we can sit back and relax, we won.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
MS is evil and wants to maintain its absolute control on the desktop market (Windows Office Gaming) and extend this control elsewhere.
It lies and it cheats to get this, recent ISO mess, Halo2 for Vista only, dirext10 for Vista only, bribing officials, well just read slashdot.
At sometimes it seems quite insane doing things that don't even make sense. Ask youreselve this, could Vista's lack luster uptake by due to its anti-piracy controls? How many of the typical early adoptors are in Windows case, pirates? It is widely assumed that MS gained its dominance thanks to its software being widely pirated, Vista can't be pirated, and it is not spreading as fast as MS thought it would. Mmm, a link?
Anyway, no matter how insane and self destructive MS at times might appear to be, it is also a normal business, run by people who despite their faults (normal people don't throw chairs) are reasonably good at their job (Everybody should be willing to admit that Gates got some amazing deals at the start of his career) and part of that is giving the customer what it wants. Granted this is MS, so it takes a while.
Opensource software development has a very large real world demand. More and more people are starting to realize that if you have access to the source, then you are finally in control of your own destiny, no more discontinuation of support, no more forced upgrades that ruin compatibility. Apache may for instance decide to go to version 2 completly BUT anyone can continue on version 1 as long as they want (hiring a dev to fix any bugs is actually not that expensive).
MS therefore has a simple choice, adopt, or loose customers. All someone at MS had to do was wait for Steve Ballmer to stop frothing at the mouth for a moment and get the plan through. It doesn't actually cost MS anything, and it allows them to add another bullet item to their sales list.
Don't count on this having any significant effect other then making MS salesreps lives a little easier. You won't see any significant bits of MS code going opensource. Just enough to keep people hooked on MS.
It ain't paranoia when dealing with MS, they are out to get everyone.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They're Microsoft licenses.
That's the point of the excercise.
If you must use an open source license, then Microsoft wants you to use the *Microsoft* open source license.
Then - Microsoft thinks - hopefully everyone will forget about the GPL and the FSF.
What the licenses actually say is almost irrelevant.
So some body with a name that sounds like it's open approve some license that's not GPL.
All the more reason why I'll look specifically for GPL3. If Microsoft goes out of it's way to go after GPL3 then it must be good.
So by your logic, gcc works on 100% of computers.
You are furthermore an idiot because you apparently think that desktops are the only computers. I am not just talking about servers here, but things like industrial controllers and embedded devices. Grow up MS kiddy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is this them "blurring the line" or "muddying the pond", whichever phrase you prefer.
Its strange, this might be a perfectly sensible, practical thing that helps us all - but I cannot help looking at MS through distrustful eyes and everything they do seems evil. Even though I realize I am doing it, I find it hard to stop. Hmm.
The license reads "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." ... use, sell, offer for sale, ...contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
....
3. 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."
This limits non-copyright rights by tying usage to acceptance of the copyright and patent right parts of the license. I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.
Here's an example: Ms-PL Product A is a flower shop management tool. OL (Other License) Product B is my solely-developed tool that controls plastic forming robots in my flowerpot factory. There's no code commonality between them, including no shared patent technology.
I don't add ANYTHING AT ALL to product A, but I use it and sell it to my customers. MS finds a way to apply product B's patented tech to product A. So MS steals product B's patented tech, and adds it to product A. I sue MS for infringing Product B's patents. MS automatically has the right to countersue me for ALL of MS's patents in product A and any A-derived product, including legal MS patents I'm otherwise in compliance with. I can't just stick to the pre-infringement version of product A; I must use a version of product A that has NO MS technology in it either, or not use product A at all.
This allows MS to shut down competitors whose only "violation" against MS's legal patents is a dispute over the competitor's patents in other products. This multiplies the patent snarl that's already threatening the industry.
Furthermore,"2. Grant of Rights (B) Patent Grant-... each contributor grants you a...license..to
It also seems to mean that anywhere a patent goes, this license applies.
If MS takes its legally patented tech from product A and adds it to product C, then the patent snarl described above will also deprive you of product C. A few carefully crafted patents, spread around like paint, and MS destroys all competitors once and for all.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Personally I do not approve any of Microsoft's licenses, Eulas or any other legal text they throw at me. If the OSI decides to approve 2 of their licenses, it has no relevance to me. I will not contribute to a code base licensed under any Microsoft born paper, and I will not buy, distribute, use or recommend any software created from such base.
So, why not follow me and simply ignore their propaganda?
Greetings,
Chris
"An operating system must operate."
...but still want to be invited to the OSI party.
:( http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/open_proposal_to_ms_certification
And it looks like Steven Goodwin didn't get his way then
Back when GCC was managed by RMS, he liked adding "convenient" extensions to the language. One of the reasons was to "tie" the programs to GCC as you describe.
:-)
The current maintainers have quite a different view on them, they only add extensions for things that can't be expressed in the language (mostly stuff close to hardware, or sometimes optimization hints), and they give them __unwieldy_names__. And they are slowly removing the convenience features.
If you don't get a warning from an extension (rather than a "quality of implementation" issue) with -ansi -pedantic it is a bug.
There probably are such bugs (GCC is big and complex, and there are stuff in the language that can't really be tested) but I guess you can't actually mention any, since you are most likely just a troll making stuff up as you go. So I challenge you to mention one such issue that can not be found in the bug database to prove you are not a troll. And if you can mention two such issues, I'm willing to believe that you are not a kook either. In either case, please submit a bug report when done
> Do you really expect people to port a compiler to a new platform just to compile OSS code?
I expect them not to have to. Only one person or group needs to do they port. Usually this is done by the people who make the new platform, GCC is the system compiler on most new platforms.
[Public License]
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright 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 copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(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.
---
There is nothing confusing about this at all. If the patent holder distributes the software, the downstream recipients of the software and derivative software are given a license to use the patent for said works - end.
MS is simply offering this bone to pointy-haired business executives who keep reading about this whole "open source" thing the kids are into these days.
Since most FOSSie projects have no credibility, reliability, or positive repuation in the business space, at least this MS-OSS initiative will give the pointy-hairs their open source, and give the business the benefits of having Microsoft offering to support it. And, it also gets people away from the business-hostile GPLv3, so it's a win-win for everyone.
Plus, we can continue to ignore the fact that 99.99999999% of FOSSies neither use the source code nor have the slightest idea of what to do with it.
How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand
References, please. I realize the OSS community likes to dredge up things from years past, so I'll need a more recent reference. The last time I remember seeing anything the could even remotely be considered an "attack" was Bill Gate's "the GPL is a virus" speech, which even a portion the OSS community effectively agrees with. So, where are the references? Where's the "attack"?
And, I want some real attacks not things like "Well, well...they change SMB, so Samba didn't work anymore!" Things like that have always been attributed to technical reasons for the change, it's not MS fault if the Samba team can't keep up. I want actual words from Microsoft that actually attacks open source, not conspiracy theories.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Dude, you gotta read the pre-processor definitions. Have you never read any submissions to the International Obfuscated C Code Competition?? It specifically defines: ""Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution." In other words, once you contribute code, you MUST grant a license to any patents that cover that code. Lots of Open Source licenses have equivalent text -- and some lawyers argue that the BSD license contains an implicit patent license which functions identically.
Considering that there is a plethora of perfectly good OSS licenses currently available, why would an OSS developer want to license code under a msft license?
Nobody with any sense trusts msft. Not msft customers, not msft business partners, and certianly not OSS developers.
OpenKiosk client is the same way. But that is not what I am talking about.
In both cases, the Linux client is both Free and Open Source on Linux and neither Free nor Open Source on Windows.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How about the ongoing, msft financed, scox-scam?
The msft/bestbuy rackteering scam has been in the news lately.
astroturfing, i.e. famous letters-from-dead-people campaign
- http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/24514/
fake tco studies
- http://os.newsforge.com/print.pl?sid=05/06/23/2027229
fake benchmark studies: the apache scam.
You're welcome.
Something intended to be included in linux distros so that dimwits come to rely on it? Then they'll do what they've always done and take a huge shit over everyone?
I'd like to be proved wrong but Microsoft have a long history of malevolence and they'd gladly build and sacrifice a multi-million dollar business to get their old business model back. I fear this is just the scorpion and the frog story again.
Can someone explain to me, where Clause 2 of the OSI OS Definition is fulfilled with the MS-Pl? 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
"How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark?"
Extend, embrace.
No. MS is not anti-OSS, they use BSD code for example. They are merely anti-GPL.
That may also be a technical defect of the GPL as well.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Neither of them is compatible with any version of the GNU GPL. See this link for details why this pretty much means that the only user of these licenses will be Microsoft.
You are clearly not trying to be fair or reasonable. You are only to deny or challang anything that might be percieved as anti-msft.
For example:
--
astroturfing, i.e. famous letters-from-dead-people campaign
I specifically excluded conspiracy theories from the criteria.
--
What I posted has nothing to do with a "conspiracy." It is also not a "theory" msft admitted to it. In fact msft admits to many of their scams. How about outright lying to the US-DoJ in video-taped testomony? How about msft outright stealing stacker technology. Yeah, go ahead and deny it. Why do you think msft pays about a billion in lawsuit settlements?
How about msft having anti-foss "journalists" on the payroll? Like Enderle or O'Gara?
And you don't know anything about the scox-scam? How convient, Do you live in a cave? It's been front page tech news for the last 4.5 years. Go to groklaw.net, there you can read up on about 1000 legal documents, all the proof you want, I promise. Also, you may want to look up the famous Halloween email. Oh year, msft admitted to giving scox $17 million.
The msft fake benchmark scam is very well known. I won't bother to spoon feed you the links since you won't read them. And anyway, ever hear of google?
Also, did I mention the fake think tanks that msft hires to slime f/oss? Look up AdTI.
What existing legal restrictions to simply USE software are there, that MS can waive with a license? I'm restricted by copyright law from copying it, and they can waive that restriction (perhaps only on certain conditions) if they like, thus licensing me to make copies. It is only because of copyright law that the notion of licensing someone to make copies even makes sense. But I'm already allowed to use it however I damn well please, so their allowed conditions of use aren't worth the pixels they're displayed via. What law says "you may not use software except as permitted by it use-right holder"? AFAIK there is no such law. I can't sell you a toaster over and stipulate that you may not make bagels in it; and you can't sell me a copy of some software and stipulate how I may or may not use it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Point is, Microsoft isn't monolithic either, or at least there are some cracks beginning to show, and individuals are starting to "get it". People at the top may have a unified message that they try to present to the public, but the real people in the trenches are starting to break ranks. I'm not saying that MS is going to turn around and become a Sun or IBM within the next couple of years, but expect to see some mixed messages coming out of there.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
You are clearly not trying to be fair or reasonable.
Really? Asking you to provide proof of your statements is unreasonable? You've got a very odd definition of reasonable. As an atheist, I think it's fairly unreasonable to ask someone to accept something with just blind faith in the person telling the tale.
You are only to deny or challang anything that might be percieved as anti-msft.
I did no such thing, I merely asked you to provide proof. Theories are not proof. Proof is proof. A press release, a court finding, even a publicly available interview of a MS executive. Anything at all would be good. You gave nothing except random ramblings.
What I posted has nothing to do with a "conspiracy." It is also not a "theory" msft admitted to it.
Admitted to what? The only thing you sent me was an article in which the LA Times alleged (the article specifically said "alleged") that a group of which MS is a member (as well as Staples, CompUSA, CompTIA and others) sent a bunch of letters to their editor decrying the court's decision. However, there was no confirmation of this by the group in the article. If you've got a link to a press release admitting it, I'll be happy to take a look. In any case, so what? The DoJ trial was a farce and a lot of people wrote complaining of how ridiculous the decision was, myself included. It's not like it matters. I'm more concerned with all of the dead people who vote in elections. How 'bout this: a more reasonable explanation is that they sent those letters in with fake names so that it wouldn't appear there was some level of impropriety. If everyone in that group had sent a letter and then someone said "hey, this guy's a member of this group", people would be all up in arms. As long as it was a one-to-one ratio (person to letter), the effect is the same. It just didn't work out the way they wanted. In any case, an allegation by the LA Times, paragon of journalistic integrity that they are, is not proof. It's still just an allegation. Here's a hint: just because it's in writing, doesn't mean it's true.
In fact msft admits to many of their scams.
Sigh......PROOF PLEASE! A reference, a citation, a quote. ANYTHING! But, let's say for the sake of argument you're not making all of this up. I ask the question again: so? Apparently it only matters to people in the OSS community 'cause everyone else just keeps buying MS stuff. At the end of the day, I like their products, I like the people I've dealt with from there and I like them as a company. I cannot say the same for most in the OSS community. In fact, I would argue that the OSS community is guilty of a lot more deceit and scams than MS ever could. I'm not going to provide proof of this statement, since apparently that's not necessary. It's been said, so therefore it's true.
How about outright lying to the US-DoJ in video-taped testomony?
How about the DoJ's "technical" witness (I don't know how a professor of any field is a "technical" expert on anything considering how far removed from the real world they are, but hey, that's me...) lying left and right about how IE takes over as the default browser despite the user's wishes? How 'bout how he said he couldn't install Windows 95 (not 98, 95) without installing IE? Every single word out of his mouth was an out-and-out fabrication that was easily verified by simply repeating his process. How about all of the hearsay admitted as evidence by the likes of AOL, Netscape, etc? Have you never been involved in a court case? Everyone lies, on both sides.
Regardless, the original question was: Please provide references to "How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand". I'm still waiting on an answer to that one.
How about msft outright stealing stacker technology. Yeah, go ahead and deny it.
I don't need to: "in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarde
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
>>Really? Asking you to provide proof of your statements is unreasonable?>No thanks, I'm not going through thousands of legal documents to prove YOUR point.
Then you can not deny MY point, can you? Really, if you are reasonable about it, you can research the case without reading all that. But if you want proof, there it is.
You claim to be willfully ignorant. That is not my fault.
Then you can not deny MY point, can you? Really, if you are reasonable about it, you can research the case without reading all that. But if you want proof, there it is.
Apparently I was being too subtle about my requests for you to prove your point, so I'll say it outright: you're lying, I deny it, it's not true. There, now prove it. You can't, that's why you don't bother trying. You expect to find proof in my not providing proof of its falsity. Lack of proof on my end does not constitute proof on your end. That's the kind of twisted logic the religious use to prove their sky fairies exist.
You claim to be willfully ignorant. That is not my fault.
I claim to be willfully ignorant of an obscure case that only a small fraction of the technical community would be interested it (after all, the last time I even saw a SCO server was in college...in 1993), let alone the community at large. I actually have a life, so I filter out the extraneous. After searching your username on Google, I see that you do not which explains why you care so much. (Actually, I searched for "letters from dead people campaign" and the overwhelming majority of sites were you bitching about it on a forum or the sites you were parroting.)
I also find it that of all of MS' "misdeeds" you've listed, this is the only one you've given any attention to. When I dispute your other claims, you just trim them from your response. Is that because you've decided you're wrong on them? You were wrong about Stacker, you were wrong about Eberle, you were wrong about AdTI...I can only assume by your silence on them you've conceded those points. In which case, the SCO thing becomes a non-issue. Actually, it already WAS a non-issue because it doesn't affect anyone but the parties involved, but that's a whole other story..
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
>>Apparently I was being too subtle about my requests for you to prove your point, so I'll say it outright: you're lying, I deny it, it's not true. There, now prove it.>I claim to be willfully ignorant of an obscure case that only a small fraction of the technical community would be interested it>I also find it that of all of MS' "misdeeds" you've listed, this is the only one you've given any attention to. When I dispute your other claims, you just trim them from your response.>You were wrong about Stacker> you were wrong about Eberle> you were wrong about AdTI...
Go to wikipedia, look up AdTI, or google it. They admit to being msft funded.
Go to wikipedia, look up AdTI, or google it. They admit to being msft funded.
I QUOTED THAT ARTICLE IN MY LAST COMMENT!
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com