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

They're animals...

[network23]

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!

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

[Clanked]

Sounds like an internal communication error to me...

Re:easy answer

[adminstring]

For those who don't recognize the reference, here's a Wikipedia article on Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

Re:easy answer

[CastrTroy]

Same way Sony can tell people that even copying a CD for use on a personal MP3 player is pirating, while at the same time selling VAIO computers that rip CDs, and portable music players that come with software that helps you rip CDs, as well as selling CD burners, and blank disks to copy CDs onto. They are such a big company, that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. What's good for one department isn't always good for another department, and sometimes the needs of different departments within the same organization clash.

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

[GPL Apostate]

The GNU project has tended to embrace and extend things. Not to the point of extinguishing them (except for classic UNIX, to a large degree.) But many people write shell scripts that traditionally run under /bin/sh but include bash extensions that make it impossible to run them under regular /bin/sh on other systems. The GCC contains extensions that don't deprecate and aren't flagged when the -pedantic switch is set. As a consequence C code is written that won't compile on other than GCC, and the developers aren't even made aware of this. The codebase slowly becomes GCC compilable only. All of this can be researched by anybody interested enough to look into it. The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft.

Re:easy answer

[innerweb]

Well, I am pretty sure this is not a CRC error this time. Sounds more like they are applying quantum computing to their business model. Now, they can make all claims simultaneously, claim they are anything and everything and never have to settle on state of existence. As a bonus, their PR dept can claim the company has working knowledge with successful quantum engine development (and maybe hint that it is a current part of their OS)

InnerWeb

Re:easy answer

[jamesh]

Probably the exception that proves the rule, but I believe you can compile Bacula under MSVisualC, and MinGW (compile for Windows under Windows or Linux)

Also, all the Xen 'public' headers I have used so far under Windows compile under the WDK provided compiler with about two extra #defines required.

Re:easy answer

[freesid]

NO. The extensions coming through GNU are chosen/written/developed by community. How GNU extensions evolve is decided by community rather than FSF alone. So this is not extinguishing, its called evolution-by-community.

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

[someone1234]

Besides, anyone can pick bash, modify it, claim it as part of their own Linux distro, Unix release, whatever.
No one will tell them they have to pay royalties, or such, for using it.

Re:easy answer

[marafa]

more like the beast with many heads (and therefore brains) each not fully realising or even knowing what the other is thinking or doing

Re:easy answer

[ozmanjusri]

The problem with Microsoft isn't really the embrace/extend part.

Kerberos
Java
HTML
RSS
MAPI
Etc, etc...

Re:easy answer

[pablochacin]

well, they had done this before: when they face a emerging technology they can't compete with, they first spread FUD while they prepare to be competitive. They did this with sun's network pc, with Internet, with java and now with open source. I don't believe they will try to "extinguish" open source (they can't) but are just trying to gain some time to prepare better.

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.

Re:easy answer

[ppc_digger]

More like: For those who don't recognize the reference: You must be new here.

There, I fixed it for you.

Re:easy answer

[plague3106]

Or, another possibility is that its a big company and people within disagree on their views of open source.

Re:easy answer

[marcosdumay]

Well, the FSF itself is an Extend, Embrace, Extinguish act against copyrights... And that before Microsoft started using it.

But FOSS is doing it for a better world, destroying what makes it bad. Microsoft is doing it for the money, destroying the competition.

Re:easy answer

[google]

Left hand, meet right hand.

Re:easy answer

[Terov]

You're not far from the truth.
Companies as big as Microsoft are entire ecosystems of opinion and endeavor. It's easy for one department to be developing an open-source extinguisher while another genuinely embraces the community.

It is only when an observer (e.g. high level management) really evaluates these respective ventures that one could ever become an "official" stance.
And really, the likelihood of said observer actually applying time and mental resources to something as amorphous and non-deadline as "supporting or killing open-source software" is rather slim. So bureaucratic limbo it is.

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.

Re:Not OSL.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You mean like GPLv3? "You can't use this code to build a TiVo." (My paraphrase.)

Re:Not OSL.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You can use GPLd (any version) software to build anything you like. The license doesn't come into play until you distribute the software.

Why do people find this so hard to understand? Its a simple concept.

Re:Not OSL.

[swillden]

"You can't use this code to build a TiVo." (My paraphrase.)

s/paraphrase/misstatement/

GPLv3 does not restrict anyone from using covered code to build a TiVo.

It does, however, refuse to grant permission to distribute such code in a TiVo.

Re:Not OSL.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the difference is? ... that's right, word Nazi: zilch

if you can't sell/distribute your TiVo what the fuck good is that to a commercial company, Einstein?

now go ahead and STFU, MMMK

Re:Not OSL.

[DMUTPeregrine]

Bull. Google runs a customized version of Linux and only uses it internally, they aren't required to give the source to people who visit their website. Plenty of people/companies go to the expense of building internal-only software.

Re:Not OSL.

[OrangeTide]

I've worked at plenty of companies that have made expensive pieces of software. entire floor of a building just to support and maintain that software package. With absolutely no intention of ever releasing the software. One example is Cisco's "ACME" source control system.

Re:Not OSL.

[OrangeTide]

I can use modified version of GCC at my company, but I can't distribute it. Oh it's a very useful distinction, and something tech companies are taking advantage of. Non-profit exclusive use is something that is valuable in the GPL. Once you decide to distribute (assuming that you want to profit off it), you gotta open it up.

Re:Not OSL.

[Runefox]

Maybe the company should, instead of using code that was developed by people in their spare time for other people, make their own damned code.

Anything for an easier dollar, right?

Re:Not OSL.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"You can use GPLd (any version) software to build anything you like. The license doesn't come into play until you distribute the software.
Why do people find this so hard to understand? "

Because GPL is overly complicated.
As said by Russ Nelson (quoting him from the summary): "These [Microsoft's] licenses are refreshingly short and clean, compared to, say, the GPLv3 and the Sun CDDL.

Re:Not OSL.

[swillden]

and the difference is? ... that's right, word Nazi: zilch

I *guarantee* you that the judge will disagree.

Re:Not OSL.

[8-bitDesigner]

Considering this is whole "Linux" thing started off as a hobbyist platform, I can see plenty of places where someone might develop software for him/herself or for use internally within an organisation. I think the ability to legally use/tweak/patch/mangle/pervert/modify any GPLv3 code for your own end is hardly an "academic" distinction compared to the "loko but don't touch" mentality of these MPL licenses.

Re:Not OSL.

[wikinerd]

No one is going to the expense to build a piece of software without distributing it.

Companies get open source packages and heavily modify them all the time, often without distributing them.

Many people develop software for the sake of it without distributing it.

Re:Not OSL.

[molo]

I think one of the most stringent set of license requirements in the community is the Debian Free Software Guidelines. After reading the MS-PL and MS-RL, it seems that it would meet the DFSG. I'm sure there will immenently be debate on the debian-legal list where this will be hashed out in much more depth. If both OSI and Debian accept the license, I'm pretty sure it will be safe to use, modify and distribute software under this license.

-molo

Re:Not OSL.

[everphilski]

It's an academic distinction. No one is going to the expense to build a piece of software without distributing it.

Bullshit. Many companies are service companies, who build very expensive pieces of software in house and sell the services of analysis. Software never leaves the corporate headquarters. For example, a company I used to work for did modeling and simulation of missiles. We wrote software in house (yes, utilizing open source code along with other code) and our 'product' was the numbers output from our simulation. No code changed hands. This is very common in a lot of industries. Don't sell your engineering codes, sell your results.

Re:Not OSL.

[nelsonrn]

In order for the patent grant to give you permission to use the software even if it's patented, the license must govern use of the software. Or would you rather NOT have the patent grant? (I didn't think so.)

Be disappointed if you want, but I don't find any license-discuss contributions by whineymacfanboy@gmail.com. Where were you when the bread was rising?

Re:Not OSL.

[Torvaun]

Maybe this commercial company wants to have their homebuilt TiVo in the breakroom. Maybe it's not a TiVo, it's a cash register, and they want to use it, not sell it. Maybe commercial companies have software that they use, rather than sell.

If there were word Nazis, you'd have been in the 'Do not allow to procreate' section of the eugenics program.

Re:Not OSL.

[nomadic]

I'm dissapointed in the OSI.

Why, were you expecting anything important out of them? It's an incredibly overly hyped group. What exactly do they do, beyond some general, unnecessary marketing for open source? Maybe it impresses the newer people but if you've been around for a while you realize that the development of free and open source software wasn't really impacted by the formation of OSI.

Re:Not OSL.

[jordyhoyt]

The licenses CLEARLY govern distribution... did you even read them?

Re:Not OSL.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Ahhh, the web-app loophole.

A company can use all GPL software it wants to create a web-app, distribute that app for use by the public, but not have to release their own code. But another company uses GPL code to make a similar app, but distributes it as a local binary rather than a web-app, and they *must* release their own code. Yeah, that's fair.

Why should creators of web-apps for use by the public be able to use GPL code without releasing their own code but not creators of compiled binaries?

I bet if Microsoft created an online version of Word/Excel using GPL code, you'd change your tune fast. But because it's Google that's stomping all over the spirit (if not the letter) of GPL, then it's just fine and dandy. After all, Google's not "evil". How do I know? Because Google told me so!!

Pathetic!

Re:Not OSL.

[nacturation]

Bull. Google runs a customized version of Linux and only uses it internally, they aren't required to give the source to people who visit their website. They would have, had that particular nasty clause originally intended for inclusion in the GPLv3 been included.

Re:Not OSL.

[pembo13]

Complicated or not, this has been mentioned several times.

Re:Not OSL.

[jaxtherat]

> Better to have loved a fire hydrant than to have never loved at all

Best. Sig. Ever.

Re:Not OSL.

[Quantum Jim]

IANAL. I don't know why you are disappointed. The GPL contains the same usage terms that the Ms-PL and Ms-RL licenses seem to have. From the GPL:

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

From the Ms-PL:

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.

Neither GPL or Ms-PL could offer this grant without being both a usage and distribution license. The Ms-PL/RL licenses don't seem to go beyond this in their terms, so I don't see how you can say it is not Free software.

Re:Not OSL.

[jopsen]

I far as I can see they doesn't govern use:
http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-rl.html
http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html

I've heard that some of the other MS licenses prohibited use on other platforms than Windows, but as far as I can see that's not the case with these licenses.

Re:Not OSL.

[LingNoi]

It's used internally on their machines. They're not distributing anything to you. You get no code. HTML pages arn't code. That's what you are getting.

Re:Not OSL.

[LingNoi]

Wait a second...

otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software

So they can request that you take out source code they have contributed? That's just BS..

Re:Not OSL.

[setagllib]

And that's fantastic. And if you want to protect your particular code from this sort of use, you can use the Affero GPL.

Re:Not OSL.

[mwlewis]

What part of these licenses are "look but don't touch?" If these licenses didn't have the Ms- prefix, we wouldn't be having this discussion. RTFLs. These are not at all like the MS Reference license (which is probably what you're confused about).

Re:Not OSL.

[marcello_dl]

Well theoretically I don't agree, I think that it can still be considered open source.

But you nailed the issue. These licenses limit USE, GPL limits redistribution. So GPL is inherently more free.

Now we'll see what position will be taken on MS licenses by the guys who used to bash GPL because it's not as free as the BSD.

As for me, OSI can bless MS licenses, ISO can certify OOXML, Vista can get a stable and fast OS. It doesn't change a iota. Microsoft attitude and actual interference with my computing experience is already too cumbersome without using their software, license, or new file formats, I'm surely not going to get more of their stuff to bother me.

Re:Not OSL.

[jellomizer]

By distribution the software? What will constitute that?
Making a custom application for a customer, who pays for your development time?
Making a custom application for yourself but it runs on a server for the general public to use? ...
In a world where software doesn't need to be handed to an other person via media the end user just gets the results isn't the GPL invalid for most of the cases, of modern software.

Re:Not OSL.

[Timothy Brownawell]

You can use GPLd (any version) software to build anything you like. The license doesn't come into play until you distribute the software.

Why do people find this so hard to understand? Its a simple concept.

Because "use" is not some nice, clearly defined term like "distribute" or "execute" is, and actually includes parts of both. A restriction on distribution is a restriction on "use", because one of the zillion ways to "use" software is as a building block for something else you're selling.

Re:Not OSL.

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, until RMS starts to get angry about the Googlization of Linux and releases GPLv4 which forces them to release their code. Hope Google picked packages that don't have the "this version of the GPL later" clause.

Interesting Years Ahead

[pembo13]

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.

Re:Interesting Years Ahead

[gbjbaanb]

one good thing is that MS has a lot of good lawyers, so if/when these licences ever got challenged in court, you'd expect them to hold up pretty well.

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.

Re:How? Simple

[UncleTogie]

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.

It's the strategy behind them picking it up now that has us wondering.

I have no problem with someone learning to use a hammer. I DO have a problem with it if the only reason they're learning to use a hammer is to beat me senseless with it.

Re:How? Simple

[Kristoph]

It's not a 'someone'. Microsoft has 80k employees. No doubt some of them would like to use any tool (even a chair) to beat you senseless and some who no doubt would share their source with you without a second though. The fact that Microsoft has enabled the latter is, at least somewhat, commendable.

]{

Re:How? Simple

[UncleTogie]

It's not a 'someone'. Microsoft has 80k employees. No doubt some of them would like to use any tool (even a chair) to beat you senseless and some who no doubt would share their source with you without a second though. The fact that Microsoft has enabled the latter is, at least somewhat, commendable.

Dang literalists. /me sighs. Fine. Take 2, for Skippy here.
Old and broke:

I have no problem with someone learning to use a hammer. I DO have a problem with it if the only reason they're learning to use a hammer is to beat me senseless with it.

New hotness:

It's {arguably} laudable that Microsoft would create these licenses. However, given their present demeanor towards FOSS, the timing of such work in this area could be construed as somewhat suspect.

Howzat?

Re:How? Simple

[ozmanjusri]

Open Source is a model, it's a tool, to achieve a purpose.

It's also a difficult competitor they'd like to destroy.

Those of us familiar with decades of Microsoft dirty tricks have good reason to be suspicious of their motives.

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.

Re:How could this get approved?

[DivineGod]

An Open Source EULA. Though it only lightly touch the subject of distributing the source.

Re:How could this get approved?

[ianare]

This is contrary to any Open Source license I know of. There are at least 2 that explicitly say that .. Common Public License, Eclipse Public License

Re:How could this get approved?

[OmegaBlac]

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.

You may be confusing Open Source with Free Software. Free Software guarantees the freedom for the user to use the software in any way they feel--Open Source does not. At least Open Source in the sense that I know it, does not guarantee that particular freedom and is the reason Microsoft can push supposed open source licensees that restrict user freedom.

Re:How could this get approved?

[noidentity]

Really. Other open-source licenses work within the realm of copyright, allow things that copyright restricts by default. This, on the other hand, is more of a contract, adding restrictions well beyond the realm of copyright. End-users have never even been the subject of open-source licenses, just distributors/authors.

Re:How could this get approved?

[dedazo]

and is the reason Microsoft can push supposed open source licensees that restrict user freedom.

As opposed to the FSF pushing licenses that restrict developer freedom?

Re:How could this get approved?

[pembo13]

I hope you aren't too stupid to see the difference between a user and a developer.

Re:How could this get approved?

[droopycom]

I dont see anything in this license that would restrict you to use it as you see fit. Granted you have to accept the license before you use, but I have no problem with that if what i have to agree to amount to nothing unless I distribute...

Re:How could this get approved?

[nelsonrn]

How do you expect to get a patent grant to cover your USE of the software unless the license governs USE? Would you be happier if you didn't have a patent grant?

Re:How could this get approved?

[novakyu]

This is why rms is mostly right about free software being better than "open source" software.

Because "open source" software licenses don't guarantee certain freedoms, while they may have some commercial value (precisely because it allows companies to restrict their users' freedom), for people who care about freedom---freedom of use, freedom to modify and improve, and freedom to help others---free software is much better than "open source" software.

Re:How could this get approved?

[nelsonrn]

Microsoft can push supposed open source licenses that restrict user freedom.

I've read the license, and I don't see any restriction on user freedom that isn't present in other Open Source licenses. For example, the license doesn't give you permission to use the Microsoft trademark -- but the Apache Software License also denies you permission to use the Apache trademark. Big whoop. You don't have the freedom to sue somebody for infringing your patent. The GPL denies that freedom, too. Is that a freedom you want?? If so, you're no friend of Open Source! You can't strip out legal notices. The BSD denies you that freedom as well.

I just don't understand what freedoms you are being denied that no other Open Source licenses deny you. Explain, please.

Re:How could this get approved?

[weicco]

Hi. I'm replying to you because you seem to have the lowest user ID :)

This is propably a dumb question but it has been bugging my mind for some time. Let's take GPL (any version will do) for example. GPL doesn't affect the use of software but the distribution. So if I don't accept GPL I can't distribute the software.

Am I correct so far?

But if I don't accept the GPL what gives me the right to use the software then? And in fact, if GPL doesn't affect the use, what gives me the right to use the software even if I accept the license?

This is confusing since our copyright laws states that I'm not supposed to even make a copy of a software to my local hard drive if I don't have license for that. And of course the use of software is prohibited without a valid license. So what gives me the right to use the software if I don't accept the license (and I'm not distributing it)?

Re:How could this get approved?

[Carewolf]

Not only that, but the license in inherently invalid in most western countries. In fact, I only know one place where EULA like that are valid - in the US; and even there they often fail when tried in court.

Re:How could this get approved?

[FooBarWidget]

By that reasoning, proprietary licenses are the best since they restrict developer freedom (specifically, the author's freedom) the least.

Freedom comes at a price. Granting freedom to a party means restricting a different party.

Re:How could this get approved?

[spitzak]

They consider the copies necessary to run the software fair use, so using it does not violate copyright or any other laws.

By that definition of fair use, a license (which only grants rights) cannot do anything about use of the software, anyway. Because not everybody agrees with their definition of fair use, it also explicitly says that use is allowed.

Since you are not violating the license by using the software, it does not matter whether you accept it or not.

Re:How could this get approved?

[dedazo]

I hope you aren't too stupid to see the problem with the distinction.

Re:How could this get approved?

[mvdwege]

But if I don't accept the GPL what gives me the right to use the software then? And in fact, if GPL doesn't affect the use, what gives me the right to use the software even if I accept the license?

The bare fact that you have acquired the software gives you that right. Copyright does not proscribe any rights that you have except the ones specifically mentioned in law (mostly to do with distribution). This is what the doctrine of First Sale means in U.S. copyright law. European law is slightly different because it is based on different premises (authors' rights instead of utilitarianism), but the current codification is for all intents and purposes the same.

If you have acquired the software in an illegal way, you and whoever distributed it to you are in legal trouble of course, but that still does not cover the use of the software. So there may be fines and damages to be paid, but you still get to use the software, unless of course the fine or damage is stipulated to be the impounding of the infringing copy.

This is confusing since our copyright laws states that I'm not supposed to even make a copy of a software to my local hard drive if I don't have license for that.

This attribute of software is explicitly covered in U.S. copyright law: the incidental copying necessary to use the software (copying to disk to install, copying to RAM to run) is exempt from the copy restrictions in copyright law.

Mart

Damn, they actually look reasonable

[Jay Maynard]

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.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[jhantin]

I haven't looked at the reciprocal one, but as I see it the difference between MS-PL and other open source licenses is that MS-PL is written to maximize link-compatibility rather than copy-paste-compatibility.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[HiThere]

1) If the license is substantially the same as one that's already approved, there's no reason to approve it. One of the functions of OSI was to reduce the number of licenses one had to consider.

2) This license was written by MS lawyers. It may look innocuous, but that doesn't mean that a court would find it so. IANAL, so I don't accept that lawyers working for someone else have my best interests at heart, and I also don't presume that a court would interpret clear English in the same way that I would.

3) No case has been presented that these licenses serve any particular useful purpose. (With specificity, naming the useful purpose.)

4) What function does the OSI serve if we can't trust them? Can we trust them? (I find that I am unwilling trust them. I distrust MS more than I used to trust OSI.)

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?

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[HiThere]

Yes, but the FSF and MS both have a track record. This causes me to be more accepting of one than the other.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[Carewolf]

Unfortunately the license is invalid in most of the EU. You can not agree to a license implicitly, like this one suggests. This makes it completely useless internationally.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[sapone]

How then, do you suggest, can the GPL work in Europe? If you distribute GPL code, you must have implicitly agreed to the license, otherwise, you wouldn't be entitled to further distribution. The GPL has been tested in various European (at least German) courts, so I believe that this form of (voluntary) implicit agreement is considered valid.

Regarding the "use" part of the MS licenses -- well, if agreeing to the license is not a prerequisite for use in Europe, I can use the software anyway, great :-). No problem there. When I want to distribute, I can still agree and do it.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[Jay Maynard]

Larry Niven has a point when he says that there is no idea so good that you won't find a fool, or an asshole, who supports it. Not even Microsoft is universally evil. You can't discount the licenses just because they were written by Microsoft's lawyers.

FWIW, I don't trust Eben Moglen any farther than I trust Microsoft; they both have biases that I have severe problems with.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[Carewolf]

You normally are not allowed to distribute other peoples code without a license, so you NEED to agree to a license to do so. (GPL)

You ARE normally allowed to use software you have bought, so you can do NOT have to agree to a license to do so. (EULA)

This license seamingly falls inbetween because the products probably ends up being free, but whether you buy something or get it as a gift doesn't really matter for contract laws.

This license is a troll, in that it is a EULA, exactly like Microsoft accuses GPL of being (but it isn't). I predict this license to be declared invalid, and Microsoft then pointing at GPL and claiming it has to be invalid too.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[HiThere]

This, then, is the source of our disagreement. I know, understand, trust, and like the GPL v2. As a result, I'm willing to accept that the GPL v3 is an attempt to be better.

You don't like it, so you aren't. Perfectly reasonable.

There are definitely circumstances where the GPL isn't the best license. Partially it depends on your objectives. E.g., Python comes under a much more liberal license than the GPL, and so does Ruby. They chose the best license that they could manage given their purposes. (Part of the reason for the Python license has to do with partial corporate ownership back in the mists of time.)

Still, for *my* purposes the GPL v3, as I understand it, (which isn't up to my understanding of GPL v2) is the optimal available license. YMMV.

Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable

[Jay Maynard]

Indeed it is. I know, dislike, and distrust the GPL v2, and the stated objectives of v3 are such that I absolutely trust it as an attempt to accomplish a goal I believe to be fundamentally evil: the destruction of the software industry as we know it, and the livelihoods of millions upon millions of programmers along with it.

OTOH, the plain language of the Ms-[PR]L leaves me with a comfortable feeling, as the plain words do little to nothing to advance Microsoft's monopolistic power.

Market control, but the possibility for change

[DamnStupidElf]

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.

Re:Market control, but the possibility for change

[monopole]

What is best in life?

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.

Wrong! Conan, what is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Re:Market control, but the possibility for change

[JohnBailey]

Funny, Open office is copying MS office. I still can not watch .wma's in Linux. No good games on Linux. Blender sucks compared the Maya. Gimp sucks compared to Photoshop. I know you are talking about Microsoft but and they did not create Maya and photoshop but they did provide the platform, the API calls, and they somehow got 95% of the desktop market to run their software no matter how bad you say it is. Looks to me like the beat Linux to the punch. So maybe it is Linux that is behind the bleeding edge of technology. Or maybe what you consider bleeding edge of technology is off in left field, but to 1% of the PC market (the Linux community) this off in left field stuff is bleeding edge. Looks to me more like catch up to older products. Just give me something to works in Linux. Like playing a DVD? Or maybe connecting to my ipod? Even funnier..

Microsoft was not the first to make a word processor, database, spread sheet or presentation software. All All already existed before Microsoft started expanding out of the OS market.

Why would you want to watch Windows media AUDIO files? although you can listen to the non DRM encumbered versions on Linux quite easily.

Games on Linux are a pretty small market because not enough people are using Linux for gaming to make it a viable market for any but a few companies like ID, who release Linux clients for most if not all of their games. Not because of any shortcoming in the OS. The fact that there are ANY games proves that the platform has all the required technology.

Blender is different to Maya, true enough, so why not buy a copy of the Linux version of Maya? Its available for not just Windows, but for the Mac and for Linux. In fact, Linux and variations are quite popular with companies in the 3D animation field where much of the software used can be written in house and optimised for the particular hardware.

Photoshop also started out as a program called Display on the Mac platform. And to this day, Apple are the dominant suppliers of computers to the graphic design and publishing sectors where Photoshop reigns supreme.

Microsoft have cornered the market by being in the right place at the right time. They got in on the ground floor when IBM was looking for an OS for their new PC product line, which was a response to the new Apple home and small business computers that IBM wanted to get in on. Microsoft bought in an OS and ported it. They included license for Microsoft BASIC, which was a port of a language invented in the 60s. They then traded on their relationship with IBM to dominate this new niche in the computer industry. Microsoft have continued with the culture of looking at what everyone else is doing and taking bits from here and there. As do all OS makers. And to a large extent, app makers too. Nothing new or particularly wrong until they start whining about others doing the same to the ideas they swiped off someone else.

Linux can play DVDs quite easily. It doesn't do it out of the box, but neither did Windows before Vista, and after a little research and a few downloads Linux plays DVDs just as well as Windows does.

  Linux not being compatible with the iPod is also not strictly accurate. It doesn't have iTunes, and is not officially supported, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Even when Apple changes the software on the most recent iPods.

Now what was your point again?

Re:Market control, but the possibility for change

[EvanED]

Open Office is now leading MS office in several areas (such as real open standard document formats!)

OO also falls behind in other areas, largely in the UI. Which of these matters to you more depends on your outlook.

Re:well, it is how they do things

[zantolak]

Except open source isn't one of those things that can be extinguished.

Re:well, it is how they do things

[User 956]

Except open source isn't one of those things that can be extinguished.

I agree with you, but all it takes is one sentence with tricky wording to cause a bunch of trouble. My guess would be that this is where they're going with it.

"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.

Re:"They" is rarely a single viewpoint.

[GPL Apostate]

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.

Actually, former President Clinton already signed the Kyoto accord. Then he refused to present it to Congress to be reviewed and possibly adopted in the US. This was long before Bush became president. The Democrats do NOT want the Kyoto accord to go to congress. It would make a huge mess of things as they'd then be forced to take an accountable position on it. Many would have to oppose adoption to satisfy their constituents (business).

It's better the way things stand, where the Democrats can claim Kyoto is 'blocked' because of 'Bush' (a universal scapegoat for all things.)

Re:"They" is rarely a single viewpoint.

[Troll Hard]

The irony here is that Gore along with Clinton rejected Kyoto when they both were in office, but now both embrace it now that they are out of office and cannot do anything to get it passed. In the same way Microsoft embraces open source, but rejects GPL and BSD licenses, and use their own open source license to control how their code and software are used. I would not be at all surprised if Microsoft releases Singularity as a MS-Open Source operating system to compete with Linux sometime in the near future, as an alternative to Windows and control how Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, IBM, etc use and distribute Singularity on brand new PC systems.

Re:"They" is rarely a single viewpoint.

[zippthorne]

They would have to oppose it to satisfy unions. Who believe, correctly, that drastic changes to the status quo will have dramatic effects on the status quo. Whether it be layoffs as businesses simply give up or a change of workforce distribution which results in fewer union jobs.

Re:"They" is rarely a single viewpoint.

[JonathanR]

Once you clear a certain size, you can't have every decision cross your CEO's desk or they'll get nothing done. I would have though that the CEO is responsible for publishing and implementing corporate policy. This seems to be somewhat related to a corporate policy issue. Confusing your customer base with apparently conflicting business values can't be good for the business in the longer term.

Re: o tempora, o mores

[derrida]

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.

OSI sez "We were just joking about trimming..."

[Infonaut]

"... the list of OSI-compatible licenses."

Why trim, when you can grow!

Attribution clause

[blackorzar]

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...

So, now that they have these licenses...

[hasbeard]

does anyone have any guesses as to what software/code they will be willing to release under these terms?

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[cwsulliv]

Notepad.

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[tangent3]

Probably something that is currently BSD licensed.

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[Nef]

.Net Framework BCL, they can get Mono on-board immediately and keep all teh shiny in 3.0 and up (WWF etc) locked up until they create^Wsteal^Wbuy teh new hotness.

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[Nimey]

Slashbots: MICROSOFT BOB! CLIPPY!

It'd be neat if they released the source of MS-DOS 6.22; it might give the FreeDOS people some help. Maybe their old DOS compilers (masm, whatever their C compiler was).

Xenix? Probably have to wait until SCO is finally dismantled, but it might be interesting.

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[einhverfr]

Microsoft already has a few projets under these licenses. The Sharepoint Learning Toolkit (or whatever it is called) is under the MS Reciprocal License. The ASP.Net Ajax Control Kit, and so forth.

So yes, they have already been using these licenses.

They have also released works under other licneses (WiX, under the CPL, for example).

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[I'm Don Giovanni]

IronPython, IronRuby, .NET's Dynamic Runtime Library (DLR) (used by .NET and Silverlight) are among the code that Microsoft has already released under Ms-PL.

Re:So, now that they have these licenses...

[RupW]

.NET framework libraries will be released under MS-RL. No, that'll be the *Reference* licence not the MS Reciprocal licence as here. They're framework source is intended to help you debug through framework calls only, not as a basis for your own code:

"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.

definitions

[niteice]

Ms-PL: BSD-like
Ms-RL: GPL(2?)-like

It'll be interesting to see what the FSF has to say on these.

Re:definitions

[einhverfr]

MS-RL is more like the MPL than the GPL v2. There is only limited compatibility between either of these licenses and the GPL v2, and bigger issues with the GPL v3.

Two new licences... what to use them for?

[wikinerd]

If I ever become a pornographer I will distribute all my content under the Ms-PL or Ms-RL.

Re:Two new licences... what to use them for?

[Virgil Tibbs]

this is interesting; you are suggesting a DoS attack on a licence. I like it. only one question: how is the patent clause going to help anything and where are you going to get loads of material to licence under this licence

You mean like the apache license?

[pavon]

From the Apache License

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
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.

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of DISTRIBUTION did you not understand ?

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:You mean like the apache license?

[leoxx]

How is the parent post a troll? If the moderators disagree with what the guy is saying, they should post, not hide and snipe cowardly using moderator points.

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[Jackmn]

How is this troll-mod worthy?

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[pavon]

The MS licenses puts conditions on use - for instance, granting MS permission to use your patents. I'm not seeing that. Section 2B states that each contributor to grants access to any patents relevent to his contribution. However, that only applies to recipients of the software, and thus is irrelevant until you distribute your modified version. Furthermore, if you are simply a user, not a contributor, then you are not granting patent license to anyone. Lastly, even when you contribute and distribute, the patent license is only relevent to your contribution and derivative works thereof - not to unrelated projects that Microsoft may develop.

Now that you got me thinking though, Section 3B may be a restriction on use, and can apply even if you don't distribute the work. However, one could argue that if you are suing someone about a patent, it is because you don't consider it to be valid. Thus you aren't forced to stop using the software, and if you win the court case you will have done nothing illegal by continuing to use it. Furthermore, recent supreme court rulings state that continuing to allegedly infringe upon a patent while you are challenging it is not grounds for willfull infringement. Regardless section 3B is practically identical to the patent litigation clause in section 3 of the Apache License (v2).

Granted, the wording of the introduction to the MS license(s) is much more forcefull than the Apache License, and its similarity to an EULA did give me pause at first. But after reading it, I don't think it restricts use anymore that the Apache License (if at all). If you are simply using the software, then the license merely requires you to agree to not distribute contrary to the license, which you aren't doing anyway. If you are going to redistribute it, what difference does it make whether you agree to follow the license when you start using it or when you start distributing it?

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[Tim C]

So it should be moderated "Wrong" not "Troll".

Oh wait, there isn't a "Wrong" moderation, you're supposed to reply if something is wrong not just mod it down.

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[Quantum Jim]

That's very misleading. The MS licenses does put conditions on use - granting MS permission to use your patents "that you claim are infringed by the software." You don't grant MS to use your patents that are unrelated to the software. The GPL has the same restriction, that "you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it." I just don't understand how you are making these claims about MS's licenses.

Re:You mean like the apache license?

[EvanED]

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

OSS != FLOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OSS != FLOSS

[Entropius]

I fail to see how one can legally enforce a difference between

vi foo.c

and

gcc foo.c -o foo

Isn't compilation of source just "looking" at that source in a highly automated way?

Re:OSS != FLOSS

[einhverfr]

Give me one example of OSS that is not FLOSS.

There is the reciprocal public license that the FSF considers to be non-Free but only because of a very minor technicality.

However, I can't think of any substantive instance where there is a real disagreement.

Re:OSS != FLOSS

[LingNoi]

Xchat..

FLOSS for Linux but Windows users have to pay for the binary.

Re:OSS != FLOSS

[samjam]

compilation also produces a distributable derived work which looking at doesn't do.

Re:OSS != FLOSS

[Entropius]

right, but if you don't distribute it and just run it locally...

M$ Gates & Gangs want a sloped field of parity

[OldHawk777]

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.

M$, OSI ... 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.

M$ has proven, by all prior actions (US, EU ...), that the disruption/termination of the Trademark "Open" market value is central to defending and expanding M$/SCO/... hostage/proprietary market share.

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 ... 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.

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 ... 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).

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.

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[pembo13]

That doesn't contradict the point of the poster you replied to. All employees of Microsoft implicitly support everything Microsoft does by virtue of the fact they still work there. This is true for any organization.

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[EvanED]

What if someone works somewhere in the hopes of changing it?

Or what if it's something like Congress? Am I to believe that you think that all representatives support all decisions that come out of Congress, even the ones they voted against, because they all work there?

Or that an employee of the USPS, because he gets paid by the government, implicitly supports the Iraq war?

There is a little to be said for your position, but I also think it's mostly BS.

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[nelsonrn]

Indeed. And yet a LOT of people think that the Microsoft employees are little automotons, Billy Clones, who have no ideas or ambitions of their own.

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[pyrbrand]

Have you met a Microsoft employee? Have you spoken with one who wasn't in Marketing?

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[nelsonrn]

Yep. He's in technical sales. He told me "I recommend Microsoft products whenever they're appropriate, and Linux whenever it's appropriate and my customers love me."

Re:Because Microsoft is not a person

[Your.Master]

In true slashdot spirit, I'll construct a strawman argument in a way that seems analogous to your argument.

All citizens of the USA implicitly support everything the USA does by virtue of the fact they still live there. This is true for any nation.

There is a problem there. They could totally not support it and just want the money. They could support most of the things and not support some of the things, or even some of the things but not most of the things (maybe they work in the automotive division and think the Zune and Xbox are evil and immoral and Windows and Office are iffy but embedded car computers, well, that's SPECTACULAR). Maybe they used to support it and now they want a job elsewhere but have yet to secure one. Maybe they support it as opposed to something they believe to be a greater evil (hypothetically; I don't have an example person here).

Like many phrases that begin with "all", your universal generalization is faulty. I doubt that many Microsoft employees support everything Microsoft does. I suspect that NO Microsoft employee supports EVERYTHING Microsoft does. Working there implies very little about their support. Maybe it would say more if they volunteered or donated to MS, but it's still not certain.

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:Not even MS knows why...

[nelsonrn]

How many foss developers are now against OSI?

We've gotten exactly two pieces of email on this issue.

Re:Not even MS knows why...

[nelsonrn]

If you don't do what your boss says you get fired.

Actually, this isn't true. The nature of large organizations gives you a bit of flexibility at every level. You *can* do things according your conscience rather than your orders, at least a little bit. Do you think slaves were cooperative with their masters? And yet masters were able to BEAT and even KILL their slaves, yet slaves still were people and still acted according to their consciences. Go read some history.

Re:Not even MS knows why...

[Shados]

lemme guess. You are either still in college or have never worked for a company with over 1000 employes yet. And you'll see tons of those employes. Just look at any of MS top dogs dev blog posts. They happily go around pushing open source, open standards, helping some open source projects, defending competing technologies, implementing stuff that works in Firefox before it works in IE, rave about Macs, etc. Overall they end up being pro-MS (else they wouldn't -work- there... these people could get a job almost anywhere within 24 hours), obviously, but they definately don't agree with everything, and will move their own agenda whenever its humanly possible.

Re:Not even MS knows why...

[killjoe]

>Just look at any of MS top dogs dev blog posts. They happily go around pushing open source, open standards, helping some open source projects, defending competing technologies, implementing stuff that works in Firefox before it works in IE, rave about Macs, etc.

Give me a link to one that praises the GPL or critizes ballmer for threating to sue open projects.

I dare you.

Re:Not even MS knows why...

[Shados]

Ok, so devs having a difference stance than Ballmer now becomes "devs doing 2 very specific things, including one that even hardcore open source zealots don't all agree on" now that I called you on it?

And if I found a link of someone from Microsoft praising the GPL, what would you do? Ask for one that praises the GPL 3.0 specifically, and says they want a mod for Half-Life where the final boss is Ballmer within 2 paragraphs of each other?

No, I can't answer your "dare" (I don't see someone touching the later, thats better left to lawyers, and the former I'd have to google a bit more than I'd want to spend time on). Things still are, quite a bit is done by MS' employes thinking on their own. You think ASP.NET AJAX would support Opera if it was just for the execs? That MS would have given Moonlight their blessing? That Codeplex would exist? Yeah, right.

Re:Not even MS knows why...

[killjoe]

>And if I found a link of someone from Microsoft praising the GPL, what would you do

Give me the link and you'll find out.

Find me an MS employee who publicly disagrees with Ballmers threats to sue open source companies, users and developers.

>You think ASP.NET AJAX would support Opera if it was just for the execs?

Yes.

>That MS would have given Moonlight their blessing?

Yes.

>That Codeplex would exist?

Yes.

All those things are MS projects approved by the MS hierarchy. Funded by MS, marketed by the MS marketing dept, staffed by MS HR, hosted on MS servers, at the MS hosting facility.

You really think some random guy is able to control all that without the approval of his bosses?

What kind of a fantasy world do you live in?

Re:At last an agreement we can trust!

[grahamd0]

" "Buy him out", boys!"

More proof M$ & Gangs torture "Open" to death

[OldHawk777]

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)!

They should know why

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Nobody, not even Ballmer and Gates controls or dictates fully the company actions

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.

Re:well, it is how they do things

[nelsonrn]

By what mechanism are they going to extend Open Source? By granting EVEN MORE FREEDOMS than we do?

Re: I agree, M$ pays karma drones on /. & ....

[OldHawk777]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=329843&cid=21004525

"refreshingly simple" answer

[Erris]

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.

Re:"refreshingly simple" answer

[Jynx77]

"The GPL is like good science, no more complicated than it must be for it's purpose." That has to be one of the worst analogies I've ever read.

Re:"refreshingly simple" answer

[dedazo]

Hi twitter.

M$ licenses are simple because they are a lie.

As opposed to licenses that are... complicated because... they are the truth? I'm not sure I understand this.

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.

Wow twitter, if you would be so kind as to explain to us how these licenses are going to "suck up" anything (assuming people are forced to use them, I guess?) that would be a great start.

The GPL is like good science,

I'm sure you don't actually realize this, but in a careful poll of industry leaders and on a logarithmic scale of bad analogies, you just it.

Toddler logic

[h8sg8s]

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.

I am not sure what gave you that impression.

[einhverfr]

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.

It's about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's about patents

[dhasenan]

But in Soviet America, Microsoft brings patent suit against you!

Re:It's about patents

[shywolf9982]

Not entirely true. So far, MS patent strategy has been more on the lines of "be aware, we might sue you" rather than actually suing someone.
I'm however intrested to see what their patent strategy will become, and it could take three ways:
a) Suing half of the world, thus starting Patent War I.
b) Threatening to do point a until the point where everyone (IBM, SUN, Adobe, Novell et al) pull out their nukes and people start getting frightened about the unavoidable carnage. And then be like "okay, what about getting rid of all these nukes?": more or less what Reagan did at the end of the 80es (Space Shield Program -> START I and II treaties).
c) Decide to slowly and subtly "inject" patent-peace clauses in their license hence making Patent War I impossible due to the cross-pollination and software dependencies. Same effect of option b, except no one will ever notice until it's over.

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.

Re:I would also note that the FSF

[Trillan]

I don't doubt you, but have you got a link for more information on this handy? It sounds very interesting, in a terrifying kind of way.

Re:I would also note that the FSF

[einhverfr]

RMS's post about invariant sections:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html
Bushnell's post that got him in trouble:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00707.html

Bushnell's email relating to his resignation:
http://softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/008465.html

Re:I would also note that the FSF

[Trillan]

Thanks. That is indeed a terrifying seequence of events.

Re: o tempora, o mores

[dhasenan]

I thought Novell defined Evolution....

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[JohnBailey]

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. No. For distribution to take place, yo have to give or sell the software to someone outside the company. Each employee doesn't rent space in the office and supply their own hardware, so the software, or in this case, the modifications are still the property of Google.

If they sold the modified software, or gave it to a different company, then they would be breaking the GPL, and would get a call from the FSF just like anybody else.

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. So in other words, you can only find out if they are breaking the GPL by breaking a different license first. How is that worse than a company using GPL software as intended. The software is never at any point closed. Even if you found something, it would be inadmissible.

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. No. You are using the software. It is specifically licensed so that you can do anything you want to do with it, so long as you do not distribute the software without making the source available. Using it within a company is the same concept of one person using the software.

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. Perhaps you get nuked because the points you are making are wrong. Read the GPL again. You can use, inspect and modify the code to your heart's content. But you must allow access to the source IF you distribute. Distribution is something that occurs OUTSIDE the influence of a company or an individual user.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[tjstork]

If they sold the modified software, or gave it to a different company, then they would be breaking the GPL, and would get a call from the FSF just like anybody else

You make a lot of arguments, but, at the end of the day, you have described a situation where it is perfectly permissable to have a closed system. You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system closed because it enables a proprietary business practice, then why is it so wrong for me to have a closed system as someone who provides software for distribution? You aren't -really- in favor of open systems, as much as you are picking a particular kind of closed system that suits you best.

The whole point of open source is to promote the exchange of information based on the idea that, overall, society is genuinely better off when information is shared and when new ideas are quickly vetted and put to use, by more than one person. When you make a proprietary system, either behind a corporate veil, or behind closed source, you rob society at large of your discoveries, while at the same time you had no problem taking society's.

If you believe in -free- software, then software must be free. It must be free to be distributed, modified, and yes, free to cross those arbitrary boundaries of company. Otherwise, you aren't really benefiting society per se, you are just picking a particular business model. To wit : there's no difference between Google Search and Microsoft Windows. Either way, we have no idea what they do behind the curtains.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[Garridan]

You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system closed because it enables a proprietary business practice, then why is it so wrong for me to have a closed system as someone who provides software for distribution?

This isn't a matter of "the letter" vs. "the spirit" of the GPL. What is the difference, whether Google uses a vanilla copy of Linux, or a modified version? At every company I've ever administered a server for, I've made changes to the configuration files, and typically modified all sorts of scripts. Those configuration files and scripts were shipped under the GPL! Does the fact that the company I was working for didn't redistribute my changes put them in violation of the GPL? Hell no. Now. If that same company started shipping my modified installation as a new distribution, they'd surely have to redistribute.

It pays to know: In the American legal system, a corporation is largely equivalent to a person. Let's say I'm promoting a concert my brother is putting on. So, I pop open Inkscape, and make him some fliers, and he gives me $50 for my time. Whoops! Last week, I wrote my own scheduler, because I don't think the standard one is really all that fair; and then I copied it from my desktop to my laptop. I don't plan to redistribute my kernel, since I don't want the evil evil Linus Torvalds to berate me for my insolence. Is this a violation of the GPL? From your account of Google's "violation", it would appear that it is. But you're just wrong.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[JustinRLynn]

Well actually, the two examples you cite are very different uses of the software in question. In the Inkscape example you created something new that was not derivative of the Inkscape source code, so you could license that however you wanted in essentially the same way that every piece of software compiled with GCC does not have to be under the GNU GPL. Writing your own scheduler for the kernel, however, is a derivative work of the kernel, but because you did not distribute that outside of your organization (yourself or for your personal use essentially) you have no need to comply with the GPL which does not govern use. Be careful to separate using a tool to create new content, and creating new content from older content, because they are very different in terms of how copyright and licensing is applied -- the GPL is mostly (if not entirely) concerned with the ability to use and continue using distributed derivative work.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[Garridan]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The parent to my original post was claiming that Google was violating the GPL by using their own modified version of linux to run their web services. I contrast this to creating original content of my own, while running my own internally-distributed version of linux.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[tjstork]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The parent to my original post was claiming that Google was violating the GPL by using their own modified version of linux to run their web services. I contrast this to creating original content of my own, while running my own internally-distributed version of linux.

But isn't that, in the case of open software, if you believe in it, that the community at large would benefit from both a modified version of Linux, and your own original content? Read RMS's treatises on the subject. He makes it rather clear that he feels the world is better off if ALL software is not owned, and ALL software as shared. You guys are using arbitrary cases to not share software, and in doing so, misunderstand the spirit of what the GPL tries to accomplish.

And, I would also say, it may not even be appropriate to assume that use of a product inside of a corporation does not consitute distribution. After all, you are -distributing- that product within an organization. Under copywrite law, if my wife and I both want to read the same book at the same time, we have to buy two copies, and thus, since the GPL is a copyright based license, it follows that you have to comply with an open release, regardless of whether or not that person is inside the company or not.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[Garridan]

But isn't that, in the case of open software, if you believe in it, that the community at large would benefit from both a modified version of Linux, and your own original content?

In a word, no. Absolutely not. In the case of my fictional scheduler, let's say that it only works well if it can solve TSP quickly. The community at large does NOT benefit from such garbage, as looking at it is a waste of time.

In the case of my original content, you and RMS can keep your grubby, communist meathooks off of it. I was talking about fliers for a concert -- but let's change the story -- let's say I'm an accountant, working for a large corporation. I use OpenOffice on Linux to balance their books. Are you going to tell me that RMS now owns their financial info? Bullshit. If that's the case, we've lost the support of each and every corporate contributor, and that spells the absolute and final end to the GPL.

After all, you are -distributing- that product within an organization.

OK. Read the fucking GPL, dude. Perhaps the most important part of any legal document are the definitions:

To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. We've been using the term "distribute" where the GPLv3 uses two terms, "propagate" and "convey". A "party" is defined to be a legal entity involved in an agreement. In the case of Google, the legal entity is the corporation. Thus, internal "distribution" does not count as propagation since the party in question, Google, maintains exclusive posession of their derived work. By using their website, you are interacting through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy. So they are not conveying their derived work, either.

This isn't a matter of "the letter of the GPL" vs. "the spririt of the GPL". This "issue" is handled in section 0 of the GPL in clear and plain language. Whatever personal rantings of RMS's that you've read do not apply here. That simple.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[tjstork]

In a word, no. Absolutely not. In the case of my fictional scheduler, let's say that it only works well if it can solve TSP quickly. The community at large does NOT benefit from such garbage, as looking at it is a waste of time.

In the case of my original content, you and RMS can keep your grubby, communist meathooks off of it.

LOL. So really, when the dust all settles, the open source movement is a fricking fraud, just a substitution of one kind of proprietary economy for another. Big fricking deal. I shit on the GPL.

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[Garridan]

LOL. So really, when the dust all settles, the open source movement is a fricking fraud, just a substitution of one kind of proprietary economy for another.

You seem to want complete control over what people can do with your code. I thought this was about freedom?

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[JohnBailey]

No. For distribution to take place, yo have to give or sell the software to someone outside the company.

This is what the argument between you two boils down, isn't it? What is the barrier between inside and outside, the line over which "distribution" happens? Not really.. the argument is between someone using free software (me) and having a rational view, and someone who is pretending to be a rabid free software advocate (tjstork) while he writes and sells closed programs. He just happens to be using a particularly pedantic and I hope inaccurate definition of distribution to get a reaction.

Has it actually been defined as "a company" in GPL?

I'd be surprised if Stallman and Mogden had resorted to commercial entities or concepts in their definitions. Admitted, I've gotta go read it myself... Maybe "a company or individual" was a sufficiently clear legal concept for them. Including non-profits, foundations, and other types of legally definable bodies, I guess. Buggered if I know. I'm in the same boat as you. I have read the summary and various articles, but get lost after the first page of the license. I can't imagine anybody wanting to use open software if they were bound to publish every line of code and every configuration change as a clause in the license.

Okay okay, I'm going already ;-) I know how you feel. Some of these discussions are a bit daft :-)

Re:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS?

[JohnBailey]

You make a lot of arguments, but, at the end of the day, you have described a situation where it is perfectly permissable to have a closed system. You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system closed because it enables a proprietary business practice, then why is it so wrong for me to have a closed system as someone who provides software for distribution? You aren't -really- in favor of open systems, as much as you are picking a particular kind of closed system that suits you best.

Yep.. absolutely true. I'm picking the one that works and delivers actual benefits to the community, and is enforceable in court should anybody try to get away with breaking it. As opposed to the hypothetical and impossible to enforce in any meaningful way version. No shame in that. Life is a compromise. And yes. I'm picking a particular model. As are you. The difference is that mine works.

Nothing is stopping you from selling you programs if you want. If you didn't create all the code in your program, then you are bound by the licenses of the code you reuse. What could be simpler. Open source licenses are no more or less valid than any other. And as far as I remember, the BSD license only requires a credit to the original author, yet is still an open source license.

A license is a license. I have to follow the terms of service for my ISP, for any open or closed OS I use, and for any program I use. I have three options.

1) Use the software within the restrictions and rights of the license.

2) Break the license terms and use it illegally.

3) Don't use it and find something that has a license more to my liking.

The GPL license specifically grants me the option to use and modify the code as I see fit, and provides the source to enable me to exercise these options. It restricts the option to distribute someone else's GPL code as part of a closed product, so if I use GPL code in my program, I have to pass on the code and the modifications/additions should I distribute it to a third party. Other open licenses vary on grants and restrictions.

The whole point of open source is to promote the exchange of information based on the idea that, overall, society is genuinely better off when information is shared and when new ideas are quickly vetted and put to use, by more than one person. When you make a proprietary system, either behind a corporate veil, or behind closed source, you rob society at large of your discoveries, while at the same time you had no problem taking society's.

No. You seem determined to see distribution where none exists.

I'm using a web application to type this response to your post. As my end of the process is using open source applications, do I have the right to see the code of every web server and application that my post goes through until you see it? and if you are not using an open source application to view it, do I have the right to see the code from that application?

In the case of Google, they are using an HTML page with various other technologies in a browser to interface with their computers which may or may not be running modified open source apps. Thus, even for more complex transactions than a simple search, the code is at no time running on a computer outside Google's property. So they are not infringing the GPL and other licenses that Linux works under.

If I own a business and provide a service that uses open source applications, but only provide the product of these applications such as word processed documents, spread sheet files etc. to the customer, then I at no time distribute open source code to a third party, so have no obligation to publish the method of producing my product.

If I make a product that includes open source code, and give this product to a third party, then I DO have an obligation to publish the code, as I have given a

Just what the world needed...

[david_thornley]

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?

Re:Just what the world needed...

[nelsonrn]

Any reciprocal license is by definition incompatible with the GPL. So what you're really asking is "Is it possible for there to be a better recpirocal license than the GPL?", which *I* am not prepared to answer in the negative.

Re:Just what the world needed...

[david_thornley]

The question is not if there is a better license than the GPL. The fact is that, by any reasonable count I've been able to find, well over half of the world's free/open source software is under some version of the GPL. The question is whether it is worth introducing another two licenses, which are not only reciprocal but viral, incompatible with the GPL.

Similarly, while there may be better car fuels than gasoline, we've got the infrastructure, and would essentially have to reproduce it to come up with a considerably different fuel. There is much to be said with compatibility.

Re:Just what the world needed...

[Aleksej]

I think that's the principal and only reason for creating the licenses and getting them approved: make a non-GPLv3 license, give people a reason to prefer it (shortness)... after some time, if people are stupid enough (only caring about the word "open"), and Microsoft is lucky enough, most software looks "open", but does not actively attack their monopoly.

Re:Just what the world needed...

[nelsonrn]

True about the compatibility. On the other hand, many people trusted the FSF to maintain the GPL in a fashion they approved, and ... a number of people didn't approve of the GPLv3. If they used the default GPLv2 licensing grant language, then they can end up having to license their code under a license they don't like and didn't choose. The Ms-RL doesn't have license successor language. You use the Ms-RL and Microsoft can't change your license. The FSF can, and has. There can be advantages to breaking compatibility.

Re:What exactly would you be agreeing to?

[nelsonrn]

You're asking for legal advice, but lawyers are only allowed to give advice to their clients and non-lawyers aren't allowed to give legal advice. Thus, you're not going to get a useful answer to your question. Here's a useless answer: if you sue a contributor to a project licensed under the Ms-PL for infringing your patent, you lose your license to the portion of that software written by that contributor. You could still use the software, but you would have to reimplement that contributor's code in a manner that doesn't infringe their copyright.

gnu may embrace and extend but not extinguish

[acidrain]

The GNU project has tended to embrace and extend things. Not to the point of extinguishing them.

Yeah, like almost any project that implements a standard. At some point they will add something... Ok...

The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft

And now you contradict yourself in your conclusion. Anyway, if you want to avoid compiler dependency *you* should be testing on more than one from the start. Anyone who knows to complain about compiler portability should know that.

XXX approves Microsoft AAA and NNN

[vldmr_krn]

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.

Re:Now the correct answer..

[Technician]

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.

Reread them

[einhverfr]

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.

The GPL v3 governs use too

[einhverfr]

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 :-)

Re:M$ Gates & Gangs want a sloped field of par

[einhverfr]

Trademark Obscurity of "Open" "Open Source" "Open Standards" Microsoft may be guilty of trademark obscurity, but do any of these have any real trademarks attached as relate to software? (Excluding Amex's trademark on "Open").

"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.

Open Source / Closed Source

[terminal.dk]

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.

Re:Open Source / Closed Source

[Dwedit]

No, open source means the companies can steal whatever they want, then not have to give anything back if they do not distribute the binaries to the public.

Re:Open Source / Closed Source

[Just Some Guy]

Closed Source is best if you are a software shop trying to make a profit.

I think you misspelled "worst". Writing new closed source software today is suicidal. You don't have the market share or momentum to get people to use your product instead of the inevitable open source version that will come along a few weeks later (assuming your product is worth bothering to copy). You don't have the manpower of large community-driven projects. You don't have access to the enormous pool of open source software that your competitors will be building on instead of writing everything from scratch.

Except for very niche markets, I can't really think of a widely successful new class of software, or of any up-and-coming software powerhouses. Even Google is working on software as a service rather than as a product.

My simple guess...

[zeruch]

...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.

more than that

[sentientbrendan]

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.

Re:more than that

[Tim C]

You are never required to contribute changes you make to a GPLed piece of code. At most, if you distribute the modified code you must make the source available. The GPL says nothing at all about contributing patches or even providing the code as-is to the project maintainers/original authors.

Using a GPLed library doesn't change this; you only have to make available the source of the code that uses the library if you distribute the binary.

I think I'm arguing semantics, but "contribute" to me means "give the source or (preferably) patches to the project's maintainer(s)/original author(s)" which is not the case with the GPL. Some projects may have licences that require that, but that's over and above the requirements of the GPL.

"under its licensed patents"; why only "licensed"?

[vinsci]

What is the effect of the patents that are not licensed?

The licenses say:

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.

clean... or simplistic?

[m2943]

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.

Re:clean... or simplistic?

[nelsonrn]

Question: would you rather have a license that *you* can understand and trust, or a license which you don't really understand but which you believe a court will understand? Because there is surely a trade-off going on.

Other than the fact that you don't mention the trade-off, your analysis is reasonable and factual.

A one page, understandable OS Licence?

[timrichardson]

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.

Yeah, one tiny little difference

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[Chris_Jefferson]

Looking at it another way however..

I find MS's C# compiler works on at least 80% (being generous on how far windows has fallen) of computers. recent versions of gcc work on less than 20% of computers, as I can't find a windows copy of gcc 4+ anywhere.

Limiting your software to only work on less than 20% (probably more like 10% or 5%..) of computers don't seem good.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[ceroklis]

I don't thing you fully understand the GP's point. Sure gcc runs on a lot of systems. But it doesn't run on all of them, and there are many good reasons to use other compilers even on the systems it supports. Performance being one. Intel and Sun compilers beat the pants off gcc, so not being able to use them is a significant defect of the code base. That's the whole point of using a standard language. Just because gcc is free doesn't mean custom language extensions are ok. As for bash, this is the same thing. Maybe I don't want to have to install two shells on my machine (think embeded systems). Bash is actually quite resource hungry (compared to say busybox). In general if you have to use specific tools with your program, then the program is not cross-platform. It becomes a gnu program bundled with parts of the gnu platform. In the same sense that java is not cross-platform, it is a platform. So if you want to write code that *really* runs anywhere (and I agree that it may not be important for many developers), anything that lures you into using custom extensions is a bad thing. In this sense gnu is not fundamentally better that microsoft. In practice however, gcc is better because it has things like "-ansi" which vc++ certainly doesn't have. But you should remember that even if gnu tries to play nice, gnu is not unix! The goal what to develop a full system. Being more or less compatible has always been a matter of strategy, not a fundamental objective. It is something that you should be aware off when you start depending on gnu tools.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[mjorkerina]

" I find MS's C# compiler works on at least 80% (being generous on how far windows has fallen) of computers. recent versions of gcc work on less than 20% of computers, as I can't find a windows copy of gcc 4+ anywhere." WHAT ? http://www.tdragon.net/recentgcc/ As it's free software, someone outside from the core team can and did port the latest gcc to windows. Tell me how I can port Visual Studio C++ to linux even if I was competent enough to.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[Chief Camel Breeder]

"...all you need to do is get gcc to work on your system..."

Where's the sarcasm tag? "All you need to do" and "get gcc to work on your system" don't belong in the same sentence. Do you really expect people to port a compiler to a new platform just to compile OSS code? How many can do that reliably? How many wuld want to take the time?

"Frankly if this is the best attack you can muster against GNU, then we can sit back and relax, we won."

Frankly, this is why you're not winning. The FOSS stuff doesn't get used when the barriers to adoption are made stupidly high.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[Chris_Jefferson]

Ah yes, I'll just compile all my software on an "unofficial and experimental" compiler, with "unresolved issues". In fact, the windows copy of gcc is "unstable software, and you use it at your own risk.".

I think (not unexpectedly) I've been misrepresented a little in this thread. I'm personally a happy gcc user, mainly on mac, and I do put in the effort to make sure that my software compiles on gcc 3.4, the last version for windows which seems to be stable and usable with big software packages.

I just think saying microsoft software "only works on x86 or x86_64 windows", and gcc works on X operating systems and Y CPU cores so is much better is a stretch, when windows is what most desktop computers use, and what most software is compiled for.

In an ideal world, the windows version of gcc would be considered a 'primary platform', and get as much attention as the linux version. Then gcc would indeed, for me at least, beat C# and vc++ in every possible way. But it's not the way things work yet.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[jasampler]

We're talking about embracing and extending open source software, that is, software having one of the new licenses from Microsoft. Of course, as you stated, embracing and extending standards with closed software applications is much more negative, but that's not we're discussing here. What are the chances of doing the same with these new licenses?

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[dup_account]

The joys of OSS. If you want it to be a 'primary platform', you can volunteer to be the maintainer for it. I think it's just that the current maintainers prefer to not deal with Windows idiosynchroces.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[WK2]

GCC and Bash are opensource, you can get them to run on ANYTHING you bloody well want too.

True, but you miss the primary point.

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.

Oh. Is that all? Sort of like how if I want to render IE-only web pages, all I have to do is get IE to work on my system under wine? That should be easy, and is not the slightest bit inconvenient. Why would I want to choose my own compiler?

Frankly if this is the best attack you can muster against GNU...

Them's fighting words. When entering a discussion, it is best to keep things civil. The GP wasn't mustering an attack against gnu. He was sharing a valid criticism.

Re:Yeah, one tiny little difference

[Chris_Jefferson]

Are you seriously suggesting that I aim to convert, and keep up to date, the entire of gcc on a very non-unix platform? While I love OSS, keeping the windows version up-to-date and working would I think be more than one full time job, and I need to get fed on my current one, ignoring the fact I know nothing of compiler internals.

Obviously if the gcc maintainers have no interest in Windows, that's their choice, I have no interest in forcing them to do work they don't want to. However, that means that gcc can't be considered a competitor to visual C++, as the two products have no platform in common :)

I'l just keep doing the (fairly small) amount of work required to keep code working on both. I have no problem with doing so, especially since Microsoft made their C++ compiler free (as in beer).

It does however annoy me more than a little how many people on this thread have been posting I can use gcc on windows, when (and I've looked) there is no good stable version available.

Simple enough answer

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:GNU apostate

[pablochacin]

The GNU project is an extend/embrace/extinguish operation, much like Microsoft. Well, you have a point in that GNU guys some times play to the "last man standing" game and try to prevail over other open source guys. But this is FAR, FAR from being the pogrom-like approach of Microsoft, which is close to Klingon mentality.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[Chris_Jefferson]

gcc 4 does work on windows? Care to point me to a download?

tactic?

[apodyopsis]

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.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[ozmanjusri]

Most of us would at least check SourceForge before making silly accusations.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=200665

Ms-PL: The trap here seems obvious...

[JetScootr]

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."
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 ... 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."
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.

Re:Ms-PL: The trap here seems obvious...

[nelsonrn]

Given "MS finds a way to apply product B's patented tech to product A" I suspect that most judges would rule against them. Judges HATE IT when they think you're trying to fool them.

And anyway, why are you defending software patent holders? They're all evil -- every one of 'em.

Re:Ms-PL: The trap here seems obvious...

[JetScootr]

I'm not defending, I'm showing why it's such a trap. Evil Empire, Inc could hairball a competitor very easily with this license. Doing so would not even result in any risk to any Evil Empire's products. But it would prevent their target (Small Guy,LLC) from using any of Evil Empire's products while litigation was underway. That's NOT a vote of approval, that's an example of how Evil software patents can get. And I think MS knows it. I seriously doubt that MS gave the job of writing an OS license to the new hire in the legal department, and told him/her "just make it short and sweet". I expect this bit of prose had MS's highest and most devious lawyers crafting the biggest bite-per-byte they could.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[Chris_Jefferson]

Looking at that guy's own home page, those builds are known to be broken in various ways, and highly experimental. My code has enough bugs without risking picking some up from my compiler.

Well, They May Approve - But We Should Not!

[wmaster]

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

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[ozmanjusri]

My code has enough bugs without risking picking some up from my compiler.

Then use Cygwin, like everybody else.

There's no "pure" version of GCC for Windows is because there's no demand for anyone to build one. The only reason you'd want to would be if you had some fundamental objection to Cygwin.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[Chris_Jefferson]

The latest version of g++ in cygwin is also 3.4, nothing from the 4 line.

GCC then and now

[Per Abrahamsen]

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 :-)

Porting GCC

[Per Abrahamsen]

> 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.

Where?

[The Spoonman]

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.

Re:"under its licensed patents"; why only "license

[nelsonrn]

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.

Why would anybody use a msft OSS license?

[walterbyrd]

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.

Doesn't qualify

[einhverfr]

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.

Acacia scam recent enough? How about OOXML?

[walterbyrd]

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.

Re:Acacia scam recent enough? How about OOXML?

[The Spoonman]

How about the ongoing, msft financed, scox-scam?

Honestly, I haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to anything to do with SCO. You'll have to fill me in on the details of this. Please include contrete, verifiable proof.

The msft/bestbuy rackteering scam has been in the news lately.

Well, still waiting to see if MS was even involved in it. The news I've seen seems to indicate all of this was done by Best Buy independant of MS. Wouldn't surprise me considering the kind of crap BB is constantly getting into trouble over.

astroturfing, i.e. famous letters-from-dead-people campaign

I specifically excluded conspiracy theories from the criteria.

fake tco studies - http://os.newsforge.com/print.pl?sid=05/06/23/2027229

Your link leads nowhere. When fixing it, please ensure it's not another conspiracy theory.

fake benchmark studies: the apache scam.

No link to that one? Gonna need to provide me with one as I'm not familiar with it. Again, no conspiracy theories.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're welcome.

Anti-GPL, not anti-OSS

[AHumbleOpinion]

"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.

Are these really Open Source licenses?

[The Monster]

Neither of these licenses guarantee that, when MS uses them, they'll provide source code to anyone. Both licenses say that IF you distribute source, you must use the same license, and the Reciprocal license requires YOU to give source code if you use their code, but nowhere does it guarantee you'll have source in the first place. MS may "accidentally" leave out source to some files, and supply makefiles that grab binary blobs so that they build OK. So you might have to use a decompiler or disassembler to generate the source before you could modify it.

That may also be a technical defect of the GPL as well.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[TemporalBeing]

There's no "pure" version of GCC for Windows is because there's no demand for anyone to build one. The only reason you'd want to would be if you had some fundamental objection to Cygwin.

I would love to see a pure version of GCC for Windows, and yes - I do have objections to using Cygwin. Even the MingW version is not quite possible for use.

Also, there's more reasons than simply no demand. For instance, GCC does libraries differently than Microsoft's compiler (VC), and I doubt the GCC team is going to modify their library output stuff for just one platform. Thus, you can't (at least easily) take a GCC built library and use it for an application built by VC. (The tricks that make it so are messed up too.)

Of course, GCC isn't the only compiler that suffers from that. A lot of compilers for Windows have that kind of issue. Thus, a good majority of development for Windows revolves around Microsoft's compiler as it is the easiest to link to - at least when it comes to APIs. This might not be an issue if you are writing a fully independent program (e.g. for the system but you're not distributing APIs to 3rd parties).

MingW is okay, but it's still a bit of a pain compared to using a native tool. Additionally, due to the library issue it's also not the best.

CygWin, on the other hand, has more issues because software built under CygWin must also run under CygWin or be distributed with the CygWin libraries as the software is built to depend on CygWin. This causes more issues - you have to figure in licensing issues if you are trying to make a commercial product (which could be prohibitive), and distribution issues (you now have to distribute CygWin stuff - so do you have to provide the CygWin code too?). You still get the library issues, which are now further complicated by the use of CygWin.

Now also add to it that GCC is not typically using the Microsoft C Library (msvcrt), so now you have multiple C Libraries in the program too - which just doesn't work. Sure, you can change this for your project - but that's more of a headache you have to remember to cure.

Honestly, the best way I've figured to manage this is using CMake to manage build environments so that you have native build environments for every platform you are writing to - and native to the tools you want to use too. (It also supports MingW and CygWin as well as Microsoft's build and nmake environments.) This helps mitigate the tool issue and just lets you get down to building software. You still have to manage the above issues, but it becomes easier.

These things are crap.

[skulgnome]

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.

Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bother

[walterbyrd]

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.

How is this even legal?

[Pfhorrest]

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. Last I checked, I was allowed to do whatever the hell I want on or with my computer in the privacy of my own home, except use it to commit things that are otherwise illegal, and even then the restriction is on committing the illegal act, not using some software on the computer.

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.

Re:gcc works on windows you idiot

[pjabardo]

Well, http://www.murdoch-sutherland.com/Rtools/ provides the tools necessary to build http://www.r-project.org/ on windows. When compiling the latest version, R-2.6.0, just released it uses gcc 4.2.1 to compile.

I don't have windows to test the compiler out but I tried the binaries and they work fine. BTW, R is a fairly large project.

Monolithic Corporations?

[Bilbo]

Something that has been somewhat painfully evident with Sun for some time now is that Corporations are NOT the monolithic blocks that we sometimes would like to imagine them to be. For a while there, it seemed like Sun would come out every other day with some statement or policy or license or software release that was alternatively GREAT or SUCKY for Open Source. One minute, they'd release something like OpenOffice.org, and then tell us that they would never release Java under an FOSS license, or make some dumb-a** statement about how proprietary software was safer than open source. What we eventually learned was that Sun, the Corporation, was made up of a lot of individuals, who sometimes had different views of the world.

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.

Re:Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bot

[The Spoonman]

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

Re:Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bot

[walterbyrd]

>>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.

Re:Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bot

[The Spoonman]

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..

Re:Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bot

[walterbyrd]

>>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.

Re:Since you are clearly a msft shill, I won't bot

[The Spoonman]

Go to wikipedia, look up AdTI, or google it. They admit to being msft funded.

I QUOTED THAT ARTICLE IN MY LAST COMMENT!