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."

Comments

easy answer

[geekoid]

"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.

Re:easy answer

[dunng808]

Microsoft wants all FOSS to be developed for Windows. And Office. As long as it does not compete with their products. Next comes the extend piece, in which they fiddle with someone's creative effort just enough to come up with something they can protect, like how they did with kerberos and ldap. Free development for their profit.

Re:easy answer

[Wordplay]

It's decided by a very small number of the community. The fact that the rest have reasons not to help (whether it be apathy or a time/resource conflict) doesn't negate the impact upon them.

Microsoft represents a small number of the community as well. The analogy is pretty sound. I don't think the point to be taken is that GNU is evil, though. It's that extension is how software evolution works, and a significant number of people will migrate to the most refined and feature-rich solution, sometimes causing the previous generation of product to die.

The problem with Microsoft isn't really the embrace/extend part. It's the extinguish part. While bash pretty much replaces sh, you can pretty much count on bash to always be around until something replaces it. The FSF isn't going to just kill it one day so it can cannibalize the market.

Re:easy answer

[Bert64]

The difference is that GNU publishes their work, so while they extend other people's work it's usually to make improvements, and the improvements are always out in the open for other people to adopt.
If your compiler won't compile something but gcc will, you can easily work out what the gcc-specific extensions do either from documentation or source code, and implement them yourself.
By contrast, microsoft often keep as much detail about their extensions private as they can, to make it difficult for anyone else to implement.
Aside from that, gcc places far less other restrictions on you than microsoft products, you can run gcc on almost any platform, you can install it on as many systems as you want for no cost, you can modify it to suit your needs, you can redistribute it with very few restrictions.

Not OSL.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I can't see how a license that governs use rather than distribution can be considered open source.

I'm dissapointed in the OSI.

How? Simple

[suv4x4]

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.

How could this get approved?

[RelliK]

The "license" states in bold letters:

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 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.

"They" is rarely a single viewpoint.

[nick_davison]

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? How can Americans be refusing to sign up to Kyoto on one hand and winning Nobel prizes on the other? Probably because Bush isn't Gore and Gore isn't Bush. When it comes to human rights abuses, the administration can be winking when telling people not to do anything bad and yet you can still have a general who comes down like a ton of bricks on any soldier who even begins to act out of line because he feels another path makes more sense in the long run.

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.

Because Microsoft is not a person

[pyrbrand]

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? This is because Microsoft is not a person, it is a corporation which is a legal fiction enabling a company to be treated as a single legal entity. In reality, Microsoft is ~100,000 people who have their own ideas, ambitions and goals. As an employee, I think my ideas of what I want to do vary significantly based on the number of levels I have to go up to find a common manager with someone else in the company.

Not even MS knows why...

[droopycom]

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. No, not even Microsoft itself... MSFT is a huge corporation. Nobody, not even Ballmer and Gates controls or dictates fully the company actions. Many people inside the company might have different motives to push for OSI. Maybe some push it because they (in some way) believe in open source. Maybe some push it because they just want to give MSFT a better image. Maybe some think its a way to fight open source. Probably some other though it is a bad idea...

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Yes, but the apache license puts no conditions on use, just grants extra rights(ie to patents held by Apache developers).

The MS licenses puts conditions on use - for instance, granting MS permission to use your patents.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[nelsonrn]

1) These licenses aren't substantially the same.

2) There's a risk in writing a succinct license in that you might not cover each and every case in detail. Yes, by being so succinct, Microsoft is taking a risk that the judge might not accept the facial meaning of each clause.

3) Among other things, they're short and readable. Specifically, they don't name a jurisdiction. This is VERY GOOD for international projects. How would you like to have to sue somebody in Santa Clara simply because you contributed to an MPL-licensed code and they infringed it?

4) Why do you think you can't trust us? If you think the licenses don't comply with the Open Source Definition, you should say exactly why, rather than attempt to raise FUD. As postmaster@opensource.org I can definitively state that your email address above is not on the license-discuss mailing list -- if you don't participate in the process, why should anybody believe your criticism of the result?

I would also note that the FSF

[einhverfr]

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.