Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS
aacc1313 writes "An article that details how Open Source is being hijacked by Microsoft and the sort via 'Shared Source' licenses and how Open Source licenses have become so much more confusing. From the article, "The confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft's 'shared source' program includes three proprietary licenses as well, whose names are similar in some ways to the open-source licenses. Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform" and "The 'shared source' program was and is Microsoft's way of fighting the open source world, allowing customers to inspect Microsoft source code without giving those customers the right to modify or redistribute the code. In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it.""
Read-but-not-reuse source really should be called auditable source or, if you are allowed to change and recompile it for your own use, a traditional commercial source-code license except it's free-as-in-beer.
Both have value and are better than closed-source software. Neither is free-as-in-freedom.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You wouldn't take a fox's vegetarian food recipes without a barrel of salt either, would you.
Also in b4 blogspamwhoring is called, because I'm calling it first right here.
is not open source. Any english language speaker should be able to get that.
Was there anyone that didn't know this?
To be honest they were pretty confusing already, with license proliferation leading to a large number of very similar free software licenses with minute, but potentially decisive differences. It didn't need Microsoft for that. Even the general overview at Wikipedia lists 54 different Open Source licenses, not counting superseded or volunarily retired ones.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
Am I the only one seeing it like this? Am I wrong?
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
If you get to view the source, it sounds like Open Source to me.
I think the problem is that FOSSies equate open source with the GPL... which is false. The GPL is not "open source", since you can have open source without the GPL.
It's kind of funny- the FOSSies hated MS for not supporting open source... and now that MS supports open source, they just moved the target and start hating Microsoft for something else. It's no wonder Microsoft ignored everything they say: sounds like time to go back to that policy.
So, two companies, neither of which is Microsoft, released supposedly "open source" software that is, in fact, completely open source? I'm missing where the "hijack" and "confusion" come in.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
How is this any different than what GPL did to BSD? Show up, act like you invented the term "free software", impose a bunch of draconian restrictions that didn't used to exist and loudly tell everyone that your choice of strictures does good for the community?
Preparing for inappropriate troll and flamebait mods. It's still a legitimate question.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I guess it is up to the developers to choose their license, but in the end such schemes are doomed to failure. If you want real open source just ignore these projects.
Which just goes to show, like the quoted article says, how right Stallman was for the freedom implications, but also how right Raymond was for the economic implications.
If you don't want your project being used for these ends just use a licence with copyleft or share-alike (to use the Creative Commons term) provisions.
The best news source I've found to keep up on Microsoft's latest bullshit is Boycott Novell:
http://www.boycottnovell.com/
It may say Novell in the title, but it's so much more. With all of the interesting news links Roy has been putting up in the last few weeks, it's beginning to look more important and better updated than most Linux news sites, and it doesn't look as horrible like a lot of the Linux news sites appear. I read Groklaw every day, and BoycottNovell comes in an easy second for the amount of information it packs.
Microsoft and Open Source are antithetical. Nobody with an ounce of common sense can have anything to do with them and not understand that there are going to be strings attached.
Tune out what they say. Focus on what they are and what they do. Structure your involvement with them accordingly. End of story.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Flight Simulator; Windows; Office; Visual [anything]; Word; Internet Information Server; SQL Server; Works; Point Of Sale; Small Business Financials;
Oh heck, go check yerself. I just stopped cuz I got tired of typing.
MS has taken deliberate name confusion to a whole new logarithm level...
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I could care less what Microsoft calls their "open" licenses. Wouldn't use any Microsoft license at all. Any tie to Microsoft is a tie they can and will exploit, a liability no one can really afford.
The nice thing about this simple truth is, you don't really need to convince anyone. If someone is stupid enough to disagree, you can just go into business, eat half their lunch, watch MS eat the other half, and laugh yourself to sleep at night.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I'm sorry, but I'm a "Free Software" with "Free" meaning "Freedom" advocate. The "Open Source" advocates like ESR are idiots. "Open Source" is a trap. Just ask anyone about the IBM BIOS and "contamination," the tricks phoenix had to play to take an API set embodied in published source code (IBMs BIOS in the tech manual) and create an independent implementation of it.
Having access to the source is "open" by any use of the english language, so Microsoft is correct when they say their "shared source" license is "open source," because the source is open for inspection, but that doesn't mean you are free to do anything with it.
In fact, you are probably less free over all because if you sign the requisite EULAs to gain access, any knowledge you acquire from the source is tainted and you may find yourself a copyright infringer simply because you viewed the "shared source" and had the audacity to write code elsewhere that may have had similar applications. Which is, of course common, because people who have expertise in one area tend to be more valuable continuing.
The "open source" movement without an expressed freedom to learn is a trap. ESR and their ilk are either too stupid to realize this or have an ulterior motive. Access to the source does not make better programs, freedom and collaboration does.
Yes, using the word source makes it sound the same, but the options for other words are rather limited. Shared Code? MS LBDTL (look but don't touch license)... really, pretty limited. Think about it, MS has not been all that inventive when it comes to product names.
On the other hand how is anyone supposed to feel empathy for a Gorilla who has been throwing (chairs) excrement through the bars at customers for years?
Can you say Lindow? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=googleabout&btnG=Search+our+site&q=microsoft%20lindows
and can you say Mike Rowe?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=googleabout&btnG=Search+our+site&q=microsoft%20mike%20rowe%20soft
Do I need to mention more?
At this point, Vista nearly finished swirling down the drain, XP SP3 going over like a lead balloon, now this? The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and I guess in this case it's going to take quite a while for the falling part to finish. Falling? Failing? hmmmmm
Yes, MS fanboi, before you finish off that cup of coolaid and reply to my post, think about the marketing blunders, product disappointments, and plain bad business moves made by MS THIS YEAR ALONE and tell me you still love the company that is MS?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The phrase is "couldn't care less", as in the level of caring is at the lowest possible. You just said that you do care, because if you could care less, you must already care in the first place.
MS can call their licenses anything they want.
I wouldn't touch their code with a 10 meter pole.
Don't wanna see it. Don't wanna run it. Don't care what license it has.
It is already tainted. I am not about to do the work of testing, cleaning and documenting MS code so they can turn around and charge me for my efforts.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Its 'couldn't care less' not 'could care less'.
Really? How much less could you care?
I couldn't care less how much less he could care. Because here he is bitching about licensing issues in a thread that's all about splitting hairs over the use of the words "shared" and "open." And amidst all of that fussing over word definitions, he sees fit to say the exact opposite of what he actually means, by leaving out the negative. I suppose, to someone who doesn't actually think about the words he uses, and simply does a phonetic regurgitation, minus an important syllabile or two, of a phrase he hears regularly - without a care about the fact that doing so alters the meaning of the sentence - that it's perfectly normal to also just mindlessly parrot Teh Eevil Microsoft mantra. Hey, once you stop caring about whether the sounds that come out of your mouth actually represent your thoughts (or mean anything at all), then it probably is easier just to fall back on the group think and repeat whatever you last heard.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's very easy to see why the GPL is the very best license to choose for a FOSS project. Quite simply, it is the license that Microsoft abhors the most. The very mention of its name sends Microsoft people into foaming fits of anger.
From this, we may safely draw the conclusion that Microsoft has done a lot of research, with a lot of lawyers, and they've determined that the GPL represents the biggest threat to their revenue model. And what's bad for Microsoft is generally good for everyone else. So if you're going to develop FOSS, the GPL is the obvious safe choice.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I agree with the first part of that sentence, but not the second.
Many organizations, both large and small, can afford to deal with Microsoft, and in fact make huge profits doing so.
If that were true, why are so many people makeing ASP.NET websites? Why are so many companies successfully running Exchange servers?
I don't like working with Microsoft software any more than you do (well, maybe a *little* more, windows 2000/XP don't really bother me), but obviously it works out for a lot of people.
How does Microsoft's license "hijack" FOSS? It would only be hijacking if they forced you to use their code, thereby encumbering yourself with their license.
If you don't like the Microsoft's license, don't use Microsoft's code. Simple.
No really, they were very clever in both creating and naming these licenses. You see most people who have heard of open source software don't understand why it is beneficial. They have, at this point, some vague idea that it is beneficial, but do not understand the mechanism. If you sit down with someone and explain the benefits of open source code the normal topics to discuss are: security and cost. The most easily explained reasons for why open source is cheaper is that people can look at the code and donate improvements, lowering the cost. The most easily explained reason why it is more secure is that people can look at the code and find security holes themselves, thus providing a more extensive security audit. You'll note I said those were the most easily explained mechanisms, that by no means makes them the most potent mechanisms.
So when someone is making a purchasing decision, MS an trot out shared source (which the purchaser does not understand) in comparison to open source (which the purchaser does not understand). They can explain how both those two, most common talking points from the OSS crowd are taken care of, and thus get a sale. They don't explain the more important aspects of OSS or how those benefits are not the same, but not even all OSS advocates understand them either and they certainly aren't going to try to explain them to a PHB. So when you tell the boss OSS will save them money; they ask how. You tell them there is no up front license fee and a lot of the code is donated for free. MS tells them the same thing about shared source (which sounds oh so similar). You probably don't bother explaining to them how the GPL works to insure contributions from everyone are available to all nor how it allows you to take avoid vendor lock-in and take competitive bids on improvements, resulting in lower ongoing costs... because those things take significant understanding and most people don't want to put that much effort in.
Basically, "Shared source" is just MS's way of providing something that looks like OSS enough to fool people who don't really understand how OSS works and they have named it in such a way that is does, sort of, describe what it is and what most people think OSS is. It is just MS removing the most beneficial features for the actual user (but which would cost MS money) and trying to pass it of as the genuine article to anyone gullible enough. And there are a lot of people gullible enough.
Linux is Open Source, but Open Source isn't Linux.
Rising to the bait, GPL's restrictions act to restrict the current user in order to the benefit the community.
Ahem. Just a little nit to pick: the GPL does not restrict users in any way. It "restricts" (if that's the term) distributors and developers, in that it requires them to make the source code available to anyone they distribute to, upon request. Like a constitution, it enshrines the rights of users, coders, and everyone else by defining their rights and prohibiting actions taken to infringe on those rights.
Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft. That is, the original developer. Not the community, not the current user. Nobody else.
This seems like a pretty important distinction.
You're right, it's an extremely important distinction, not unlike the distinction between your run-of-the-mill business contract and the US Constitution or the British Magna Carta.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I wrote that the trademark application was formerly denied. It was not; it was withdrawn. I wrote the node in stream-of-consciousness fashion and when I came back to edit it for posting I missed this edit and clicked the button too quickly. It's always embarrassing to make an error in bold print.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is not about belief, it is about Anti-competitive behavior.
M$ has bought off Novell, and plans much worse than what we
are seeing here.
This is just the tip of the Iceberg.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/index.php?p=2369
An old Adage, Evil is as Evil does.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
I don't think Microsoft is providing access to source code as a way to combat FOSS, but as a way to attempt to comply with an EU antitrust ruling.
Truly "Open Source" licenses may be part of the plan, but the real reason they are exposing source is so that developers of products that compete with MS products like Word or Excel aren't at a competitive disadvantage that could result in expensive lawsuits.
I don't think MS is trying to be confusing (this time). I think the confusion is a side effect of a large, complex corporate entity based on closed source proprietary software trying to expose the minimum required to pass legal muster. It's not FOSS and it's not pretending to be. Do you expect something simple and concise when they mix EU law with a giant US corporation?
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
When BSD proponents say "ah, but GPL ISN'T 'free' because I'm told what I can't do with it".
Or MS hopefuls saying "The GPL is like our EULA's because it doesn't let you use the program".
That sort of "read" isn't what "read" a computer program would mean. I.e. can I compile the source and affirm that source is what is producing the binary? That sort of "read" is "read like a book". And software isn't a book.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is MS running Lindependence 2008? It sounds like it, if they're charging Linux distros a fee to install their distro at their installfest.
Microsoft was doing this long before the ruling you're pointing to: the history of their "shared source" initiative is full of explicit statements by Microsoft that indicate this is their response to "open source", and that "shared source" is a "better" model because people "really" don't want to modify the code, they just want to read it.
More recently Bill Gates was quoted as saying that giving away demo copies was "free software" and that "open source" meant you HAD to give away the source (ie, the GPL), and that the alternative to this was "shared source".
So, yes, they absolutely are trying to be confusing. They were even more confusing before they renamed some of their licenses to get them certified as Open Source.
And they really *are* being confusing. I've run into people from all sides of the open source issue, including people arguing for the GPL, confusing open source and "shared source".
It's not FOSS, but it *is* pretending to be.
I've always heard the FOSS debate having something to do with the technical merits of being able to modify and view your source code for security or customization purposes. Even if it's platform-locked, this still applies to that general principle.
But there are shades of madness in the open source community- once Microsoft fulfills the realistic argument for why you need the source code, suddenly it's not about actually having the source code. No- it's about porting it to linux and refusing to maintain it for windows, nay- FREEDOM. It's about some sort of weird ideal defined by Stallman, whose primary argument seems to remain that he doesn't like that things cost money or that there's a software industry hustling and bustling out there that he's not qualified to participate in.
Suddenly it's no longer "you need the source code to make use of the product" but it's evolved into "I deleted the wifi firmware on my laptop because it wasn't free. Now I use a wire."
Since the slashdot zealot crowd has so many shades of open source mania, it doesn't matter what microsoft will do. Here is my slashdot zeitgeist by MS license-use prediction:
MS LRL: It's bad because it forces you to use code written FOR windows on windows.
Ms-RL: It's bad because it's not abstractly free in Stallman's imagination.
GPL: It's bad because it's Microsoft, and they're planning something.
BSD: They're just going to make us so we're dependent on it then they're going to sue everybody and everything will far apart. I was abused as a child and have trust issues.
MIT: The world is going to end and we need to resort to cannibalism immediately.
My personal thought about this is that the Shared Source license is a way for Microsoft to make use of open source in some applicable categories without having their code licensed under something that is controlled by an organization of wingnuts, like the FSF. Thus, they could release their code under the GPL, but then Stallman will just draft a GPLv4 that says whoever uses the license needs to release the source code to Windows if they are called "Microsoft", which is basically like what the GPLv3 did to Novell. Stallman and his nimrods will cook licenses that include bitter little addendums to address contemporary issues that put his panties in a knot, because suddenly Stallman has the say in how people use Linux.
This is the same reason that Monsanto doesn't use Earth First! to handle their marketing and to distribute their products to grociers. If Microsoft goes open source, they need to have the assurance that the license is under their terms otherwise their shareholders might get nervous that they're putting some maniac activist organization in control of their distribution rights. There's no reason to do that unless Windows is squarely defeated in the market by open source alternatives.
Could you imagine how many windows clones would show up overnight? It would be a disaster for their platform and company. They're currently in a state where they can sell their platform for large amounts of money. They won't give that up because it angers a fringe of developers whose religion is FOSS-- they'll only do it if there's no other way to make money.
Back in the 1980s, when Richard Stallman was the only one talking about the need for "free software," no one quite knew what he was talking about.
Back in the 1970s lots of people were talking about he need for free software, under all kinds of names. More than that, we were doing it. The movement that RMS is given credit for starting was already well under way, all across the spectrum. You had compilers (and not just on big computers, in the 8-bit worls Small-C, Tiny-Pascal and -Basic, and Forth were published in Dr Dobbs Journal), editors, shells, UNIX emulation (the Software Tools VOS on minis and mainframes, and more modest tools on micros), the free/open/whatever-you-call-it community was already huge when he published the Gnu Manifesto in 1984.
Before the late '70s commercial closed-source software was really the exception. It wasn't even clear how much of a future there was for proprietary code, because a software package that didn't include source meant you were locked in to the operating system you got it for. A friend of mine came up with he name "Tangible Software" to describe software that wasn't proprietary and locked down to a single OS by being distributed only in compiled format, and we even used that name for our company (don't bother googling for it, it lasted less than a year and never shipped any product... we were both undergrads at Berkeley and had no time for classes AND starting up a business). Of course what happened was that this turned into a benefit for the vendors of proprietary software... they could sell you the white album over and over again.
The point is that what actually happened is that RMS provided a focus for what a lot of people were already doing, and tried to redirect the energy of the community his way. He succeeded, in both, to a point... but the people who didn't want to be redirected found they needed a better name. "Free Software" already meant too many things to too many people, from freeware (mostly binary (not "tangible") and some of which was crippled, and soon became 'shareware') to things like BSD- and MIT- licensed code to purely public domain stuff, even before Stallman, but he sure didn't help things.
Now we have RMS arguing that "open source" should refer to the development model (the bazaar) rather than the license, though the OSI's definition of open source is all about the license... and Microsoft trying to hijack the mindspace with "look but don't touch" licenses (also nothing new... you used to be able to get VMS source code... on microfiche). The term's under attack from both sides, and the history of the past 30 years is being rewritten (with the best of intentions, no doubt) by all sides.
Ah look, the Redmond shills are out again. To most of who know something about criminal scammers like Microsoft, one of the oldest tactics in the book is look-alike or sound-alike products. Microsoft is intentionally trying to muddy the waters this way, and you should know it, REdmond shill, as you're sent to various forums to muddy the waters a little yourself.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But the FOSS model only works when people are glad to put their time and effort it and have their work accessible to all, not have it hijacked and made proprietary.
Do they capitalize on it? Well it looks like it in community page where they call for the creation of a community for Microsoft ENterprise Open Solutions", and offer registering.
Now these are all great, for a closed source solution. And of course they are free to markwet their products in any way they like. The problen is really that they seeming implication that they have the open source credibility.
Microsoft next: Microsoft makes almost identical licences, one open source and one not, as the quoted article says, taking the trouble to certify the open source one. They are also making it easy for someone (Aras or anyone else) to confuse the issues.
So my assertion stands: Both big and small companies are starting to try and gain open source credibility by linking their projects to "openess", but without having to respect open source principles. And of course they do it indirectly, so it is harder to be held accountable.
Quite simply.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Who cares what the proprietrary Microsoft/Apple beasts do? - as long as it doesn't impact real open source software.
Personally, I wouldn't look at a single line of Microsoft written code, so as not to 'taint' any open source project I work on with anything that could be claimed to be microsoft 'Imaginary Property'
Microsoft have missed the point here anyway.
The whole strength of Open Source, is the right/responsibilty to redistribute enhancements. I can't see 'shared source' type licenses benefiting anyone - at all.
At the end of the day, we already have most of the open source applications / operating systems that most users need. As long as we make things easy enough to use for ordinary users, and maintain current development momentum, the Microsoft/Apple beast will eventually fade to irrelevance.
use of "open source" needs to be stopped - period - for two reasons:
1) this example license falls into the category of "open source":
"here's some source code. you can look at it. therefore it's 'open'. isn't it pretty. if you use it or anything you learn from it, we'll sue you for everything you've got. please indicate your acceptance."
"open source" licenses do not convey the right to make any use of the code. encouraging companies to get away with this by "opening" the source code is clearly not ok, and i would advocate that anyone faced with such a license simply not do business with such a company: the code should be "free software" or you walk away. this sends a clear message.
2) "open source" in military intelligence communities has a very very specific meaning: it means "a source that is open". i.e. "a source - of information - that is uncontrolled". i.e. a source - e.g. a leak - which is beyond the control of an intelligence agency to stop further information from leaking out of it.
so an "open source" is a nightmare for intelligence communities that has to be shut down at all costs.
therefore, to use the phrase "open source" in a military environment when referring to "source code of computer programs" has nasty connotations associated with it that rings massive alarm bells.
in all, the sooner that people stop using the phrase "open source" and correct people - repeatedly - to use the phrase "free software" the better.
Wrong. It is not open source. You can look at some code that MS claims is somehow related to the binaries you are using. But that is not any different than just flat out relying on the binaries.
The only way it can be called open source is if the code is available for actual use. Don't fall for the crap.
There's no question that MS is doing this specifically to confuse - especially with their "lesser" license which does precisely the opposite of what the LGPL does relative to the GPL - it locks you down more instead of less. They absolutely should be called out on that, and it's not unreasonable to demand that they make it clear exactly what they're doing.
That being said, I really don't see the problem with that proposed scale. Public domain DOES in fact give you more freedom than open source (whether that's a good thing, and if so, when, is of course the source of a many a debate), and there are indeed levels between open and closed. Allowing your code to be viewed and audited is clearly better than purely closed source, and it means that if you claim your code is solid, you better be prepared to answer to the many coders who will confirm that.
I'm not claiming auditable (but not modifiable) code is a substitute for open source - it most definitely is not, but it does have its place, and it's clearly an improvement from running a binary with no idea of how the codebase was done.
Only the mind of a true hater would twist this into some big conspiracy theory that Microsoft is "hijacking" open source.
No. This is obvious fraud and deceptive marketing.
Anyone that's not a total sheep should be up in arms about
it even if they are Microsoft groupies. Ultimately this is
about the fact that Microsoft has a long history of using
misleading trademarks and trying to hijack well established
terms of art.
This is by no means the first time Microsoft's done this.
They tend to do it constantly.
This is business as usual for Microsoft.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, this little debacle was kind of why the whole "open source' thing
...broken by design.
was thought up to begin with. It was meant to be a "kinder gentler" sort
of Free Software that wouldn't scare off the Robber Baron wannabes. This
sort of shenanigan is pretty much why the term was invented.
Yes it's underhanded and nasty in the usual Microsoft style but it is
also consistent with the design of the idea to begin with.
It's kind of like some Microsoft bug that causes a remote root exploit.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Or just combine the two terms to "Free Source" or "Open Software"...
IMHO, "Free Source" makes more sense, but still could cause some confusion with the intel folks... and by intel I don't mean the company, I mean the intelligence communities.
Does that make sense? and by sense, I mean the stuff most people don't have, not cents, which this is my 2...
Peter Corcoran
Free for the public to look at the source without restrictions
Free for the public to use without restriction
Free for the public to redistribute under the term of the licens that says it needs to be kept public
Free for the public to modify without restrictions
Put available software under scrutiny for each of these points and prohibit the use of this term for any software that does not meet *all* of these points.
Problem solved for the benefit of the public.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I don't think "Yeah, the actual text of the license may not mention Microsoft at all, but we should still have control over software released under it cos we wrote the license!" is going to impress a judge very much.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Another /. article stating the obvious, incorrectly and flamboyantly. Although, it offers little new knowledge and is somewhat of a Captain Obvious venue, it is still an important thing to keep in the public eye.
./ers will shred this article, nit-picking technicalities of shades of meaning, rather than argue the message and meaning attempted to be delivered by the author.
While Open Source is a poor word combination, and the author obviously really means FOSS and not Open Source, due to the, as mentioned, ambiguity of the term Open Source.
So now the
Of course, maybe I'm way off base and am reading more into the post than it deserves.
Well, it doesn't seem to work that way, does it.
if we just replace the word 'shared', and make it "Screwed Source", that would be more meaningful.
Read radical news here
Open source, meet shared source.
IMAP, meet MAPI
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I remember a time in my life when people openly published code and didn't feel the need to have licenses. we met together in groups and taught each other all kinds of things that could be done with a machine and we didn't need a mascot penguin to rally around. we simply enjoyed doing it.
now any bit of published code is opened to all kinds of legal questions and these are the kinds of questions that most people can't answer to the satisfaction of novice coders who'd like to just put something out there and see what people do with it.
my real question is, who's more at fault for this? ms or stallman?
the open source movement is a fraud because it was a way to fence in well meaning hobbyists into becoming a bunch of lawyers who bickered and argued more over licenses than code and left a bunch of talent out on the streets who didn't want to be part of a quasi political movement. we didn't need a movement. it was forced on us by the kinds of people who thought that they knew what was best for us. normally that kind of thinking gets scowls and howls around here but it seems that fanboism trumps common sense.
Or, its just an attempt to satisfy some IT checklist item promoting the use of 'Open Source' within an enterprise that the PHBs will buy.
Have gnu, will travel.
Proper Nouns are not pronouns
....
... from the corporatism profiteers' drive-by sales of SOSS (Same Old Shit Software) in the USA and EU pseudo-capitalism economy.
... like ... source is freely editable, shareable, and available ..., just read about GPL and BSD licenses, then by consensus define how/when/... the trademark "Open" can be used. "Open" defines many varied source purposes, concepts, applying to software code, personal creative content, standards, patents, community structures, collaborations .... If this is not done, I am sure that the corporatist/plutocrats of pseudo-capitalism will bury the L/FOSS community and any other "Open" markets/sectors (Standards, Content, Music ...) in this anti-competitive corporate-welfare economy.
Open is not open.
Bath is not bath.
China is not china.
Apple is not apple.
Mobile is not mobile.
Windows is not windows.
US ain't us, but is should be US not U$/M$/eU....
"Open" should be an internationally protected market/economic trademark like Champaign, Cognac
"Open" provides significant international market/product value that is being fraudulently used by companies (like microsoft) to damage the market value of "Open". L/FOSS companies need "Open" to be competitive and differentiate L/FOSS services, methods, standards, products
"Open" needs to be legally protected in the global market just like Sun_sun_SUN, Java_java_Java, Windows_windows....
IOW: To use the market trademark "Open" specific standards must be meet
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The reality of the situation is, many people are likely to be evaluating software packages for adoption. MS will certainly be marketing those packages and trying to sell PHBs. What good engineers need to be able to do is explain why OSS software is better than closed source and what benefits it will bring (if any for your use cases). MS's shared source licenses have simply made this job harder by muddying the waters and making it harder to present oversimplifications. As such, it is useful for people to discuss here what the real benefits of code licensed say GPL versus MS-LRL so that when your PHB asks for an evaluation you can explain it him or her in a well thought out way. Simply telling them that MS's licenses should be ignored is not always going to be a realistic option.
Trademarking the word "Open"? Even in the context of software only... Good luck with that.
That's how long Ms-PL license is.
ok, it might be something like bsd, but it says basically nothing.
it is not comparable with gpl. gpl protect users, developers and distributors.
i tag this license as "itsatrap".
MS-PL -> http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/publiclicense.mspx
"Open" (not as in open a door) as a proper-noun expresses a specific marketing concept and cultural/social purpose for products and services.
..., and the financially disruptive and damaging impact on people, companies, countries ... in the "Open" community caused by microsoft's and others fraudulent use of the comparatively new "Trade" term "Open" in deceitful ways for economic gain.
Microsoft uses Windows (not windows) as a trademark.
IMO: I am confident "Open" can be trademarked by the Open market/sector community, because of the significant value added to all products and services that are truly "Open" as in GPL, Open Content, Open Standards
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I am sure they started the shared source program because they love us.
twitter, why do you insist on attaching emotional labels to something that is a simple business matter to a corporation? You seem to use "hate" the same way the neocons use it, as in "they attack us because they hate our freedom". Do you really believe you're furthering your cause when you do this?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
If you think the term 'shared source' is confusing, then wouldnt also 'closed source' be confusing?
Isnt it relevant that MS has plastered all over their documentation that their licenses are NOT traditional open source licenses, and that they scrupulously avoid the term 'open source' for licenses that arent OSI approved?
Heck, lets look at their FAQ on the subject:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/initiative/faq.mspx Q. Is the Shared Source Initiative "Open Sourcing" Microsoft code?
No. The term open source software (OSS) is broadly applied to any (or a combination) of four interrelated concepts: the OSS development model, OSS philosophies, OSS licensing regimes, and OSS business models. However, first and foremost, OSS is a development model built around the idea of community creation and sharing of source code. The other three concepts, and the debates surrounding them, lend further definition to the OSS movement or "culture."
Microsoft has been learning from the OSS community regarding the benefits of deeper collaboration and increased transparency leading to better communication with customers. We believe the most effective pathway for a commercial software company is to strike a balance between investing in research and development and the release of intellectual property assets in the form of source code for both reference and collaborative purposes.
For more information on Microsoft and open source, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/opensource. And lets look at the common acronyms of the things used:
MS-PL, MS-RL
Compare that to:
GPL
LGPL
Apache
BSD
etc
Where exactly do you see the confusion? I cant imagine any better way for MS to make them clear and unambiguous than by sticking MS- in front of them, and making sure they dont look anything like GPL or LGPL.
It sounds to me that you're so blinded by your zealotry that any MS use of the word 'source' in any form would be perceived by you as some great evil coming to get us.
Can you cite this?
I think what you mean to say is that they got the OSI folks to approve MS-PL and MS-RL as Open Source licenses.
Nowhere does anything say that they are GPLv3 compatible. I'm fairly sure a trivial read of GPLv3 would show that the GPLv3 by itself would prohibit this.
Up in arms about what, exactly?
MS' use of the term 'shared source'?
So they purposely chose a term that is different and obviously not 'open source', and have went to great lengths to make sure that no one reading about this stuff confuses them with open source.
What exactly are we supposed to be up in arms about?
The term 'shared source' is descriptively accurate, in that it is source that MS is sharing. The word 'shared' in no way implies to any reasonable person that it is open or free/libre.
I really dont see the problem.
"the real reason they are exposing source is so that developers of products that compete with MS products like Word or Excel aren't at a competitive disadvantage that could result in expensive lawsuits"
Microsoft was scared of 'Open Source' a long time before the EU ruling. And it's 'shared source' but only under the Microsoft platform.
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market"
"Microsoft today announced a partnership with open source solution vendor SpikeSource to eventually certify all of SpikeSource's SpikeIgnited solutions on the Microsoft Windows platform"
"what Microsoft really wants is to prevent defections--customers replacing some of their software with open-source alternatives"
davecb5620@gmail.com
Hijack huh...i see MS releasing source code under their own licenses, none of which even use the words open or free.
On the other hand i see the OSI literally redefining what the word "open" means, adding terms, conditions and such to an otherwise commonly used english word.
Um, you hate Microsoft and you spend a lot of time trying to convince others to act emotionally.
you are either here to harass someone you think is twitter
Wait, you're actually denying this is one of your sockpuppet accounts? Seriously?
"How is this any different than what GPL did to BSD?"
"Why does it appear that so many of the new and most actively developed open-source projects these days are being done under the GNU license, rather than the BSD one which proponents say is more business-friendly?"
davecb5620@gmail.com
OMG! Shared Source is not Open Source! Gifs at 11! In other news, the sun rose today and water ran downhill.
I'm sorry, but this is SUCH a stupid article.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
n/t
Unfortunately, that created problems later when they decided to get them approved. They now have to re-brand these licenses as Open Source, which will take a while.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The sound you hear in the background is that of a thousand Slashdot readers laughing and shaking their heads.
""open source" licenses do not convey the right to make any use of the code. encouraging companies to get away with this by "opening" the source code is clearly not ok"
Your assertion that people will revolt against opening of source code unless they are permitted to do whatever they want with it is absurd. Most people (yes I'm making that assertion, most) value transparency of code for security and stability reasons way more than they value the ability to take software and do whatever you want with it.
We're literally defining what "Open Source" means. Open means whatever the hell you want it to mean. But Open Source means what we say it means (and you can feel free to disagree but you'll be holding the wrong end of the manure fork).
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
IBM: making money.
Sun: making money.
Red Hat: Making money (despite CentOS).
If you're going to say "not all are threatened" or "they could have made more money without GPL", then MS is a threat to anyone who wants to sell software: Do it MS way or get locked out. And if you're too successful, MS will take your stuff.
My bad, I had never seen of nor heard of that.
... but I guess that speaks to 'open-ness' of the MS-PL.
Thanks for the correction.
Frankly I'm surprised
Open has a dictionary definition, so no it doesn't mean whatever i want it to mean.
Open source then must at least be somewhat related to what "open" means in the first place. Yet i see all these additional terms and conditions placed on the term Open Source by the OSI, things that have nothing to do with being "open" but are in reality licensing terms and rights.
My bad, I had never seen of nor heard of that.
... but I guess that speaks to 'open-ness' of the MS-PL.
Thanks for the correction.
Frankly I'm surprised
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Breakfast served all day!
"Windows" is "windows" when it's capitalized as the first word of the sentence, but it's not Windows(TM)
"In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it."
which is why it's called... shared source and not open source.
OMG microsoft has set us up the bombs! Oh noes!
God... nerds.
The problem is that Microsoft then goes on to talk plenty about how *some* of the "shared source" licenses are approved by the OSI, and how *some* of them are very much like the GPL or BSD licenses. But that "some" is usually made very tiny and disappears after awhile, so that the end result is that it sounds like *everything* called "shared source" is the same as Open Source, when in fact that most stuff that term is used on is *NOT* open source.
I got a trademark on "Technocrat", which is descriptive.
Now, defending some of these marks might have taken more money than they had back then. Had they gone through with the registration, they might well have been able to defend the marks now.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's a trademark too. Just not a registered one, because that got botched.
Can't you do something more constructive and work on hacker? The abuse of that to mean computer criminal is much more bothersome.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
MS-PL, MS-RL I notice you did not list the MS-RSL (which was listed on the exact same faq page as your quote about OSS you cut & pasted, although they seem to have obfuscated it a bit by not listing the abbreviation so it was harder to read). You also don't list the MS-LPL and the MS-LRL.
These three are the ones being complained about (also the approximately 60 other liceneses that they also call "shared source", but to their credit they are trying to phase out and cut down to only the five listed here).
That fact that you blatently ignored the licenses that everybody is arguing about leads me to believe you are a shill.
It is the same one every time, isn't it? So, to clarify, Open Source is any source code that is published, according to the DinkyPoo Initiative. Membership including... uh, I'd better not get nasty about it - even if that is tempting, I try to maintain a certain tone. But there aren't very many of them.
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If it's not 4F software, it's pricey software.
Four Freedoms. 4F.
If it's not 4F, you lose.
If Ms wants to open there code and not let anyone modify (fix) it let them. All thats going to do is birth more vicious exploits that MicroCrap users have to wait until Service Pack 18 for them to be fixed.
I've always considered it dumb to play with MS.
Yes, we have ideals of freedom and sharing and all. It is still stupid to allow someone in who you know is hostile and who has a long track record of fucking over former business partners. It is just dumb.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
While you wouldn't be able to trademark "Open", there is an organization called "The Open Group" and they'll gladly publish your open standards if you pay them.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The Ms-PL (and also the other license) are an interesting read. Nearly half of the text is about software patents. First it says:
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 toLet's play out this license in a different setting. What happens if I contribute and Microsoft or a third party like SCO or Novell sues me? In this case the license allows me to withdraw my software patents. But I don't have any software patents! LOL
There is an article about Ms-PL and patents on Oreillynet.com which confirms my concerns. Furthermore the article points out that only contributors have these rights. If you are a user of the software, the license doesn't offer you protection against software patents at all. Well. I certainly prefer the GPL which allows me to withdraw my contribution if patent claims are made by Microsoft or a third party.
The OSI did not invent the term "Open Source".
That's irrelevant. For terms, it's not the person who "invents" the term that gets to define it, it's the person who manages to convince others to use it in a particular sense. OSI was clearly the first organization to establish a widely adopted meaning for the term "open source" with respect to software (it also has an intelligence meaning).
Short form: The OSI should not be allowed to define what "Open Source" means any more than McDonalds should be allowed to define what "Hamburger" means.
That's because the term "hamburger" was in widespread usage before McDonald's started to use it. But McDonald's probably owns the trademark "big mac", even though that term was used occasionally before for various things. That's because McDonald's put that term in widespread commercial usage.
That's not fair. The guy was using an accepted turn of phrase (whatever THAT means) to say something that EVERYBODY understands. He has big problems with his thinking? Fine. Be satisfied to refute that.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
You know, I'm normally not a grammar nazi... but that's just one of those ones that reflects an actual cognitive disconnect. It's not said ironically, it's generally actually meant to convey that there is nothing one could care less about. It's the least important thing on your mind. What would be the point of saying you COULD care less? How much less? It's a completely pointless thing to say, makes no sense at all. And yet, people utter those sounds, minus an important part of it, because they've heard someone else say something similar. It betrays the person's poor communication skills, and suggests that they are particularly prone to group mimickry without actually giving any thought to what they're saying. I think it IS fair to extrapolate - especially in the context of a Microsoft bash - a fair amount about someone's motivations and the way in which they interact with their culture... from how they do or don't choose the words they use.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No, you're using hate exactly the way it's mean to be used, as an emotional argument that you think will rally people to think the way you do. You are using it because you are intellectually incapable of looking at those issues as what they really are. Or you simply don't care to, because it's inconvenient to the jihad.
And have you stopped beating your wife?
Haha, good one.
From lies and fabrications? I'd defend Symantec, IBM, Canonical, RedHat and the easter bunny. Especially the easter bunny.
I was thinking the same thing, but from a slightly different angle, which involves sockpuppets and apparently copious amounts of free time, or some sort of reward. Not going too well, that sockpuppet thing is it?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
No. Microsoft has "Microsoft Windows" as a trademark. It does not own any trademark on the word "Windows" alone.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Whether you pick MS-LPL or MS-PL or MS-RSL is irrelevant.
No reasonable human being would confuse these with GPL or LGPL. I mean heck, they all have a giant MS- stuck in front of them.
And if anyone is so unfamiliar with English language that they cannot distinguish 'shared source' from 'open source' then they are not a reasonable person to be in a decision making role for software acquisition.
Even when reading the license text directly, the MS licenses are simple and clear. They're fairly similar to many other licenses out there, but with the patent poison-pill business, which is very reasonable for a commercial company to use at this point in legal history in the US.
How do you change "MS-PL" to "MS-LPL"? You add an "L". And the result is a MORE restrictive license.
How do you change "GPL" to "LGPL"? You add an "L". And the result is a LESS restrictive license.
Are you seriously claiming that this is not purposly done by Microsoft to confuse things? I'm sorry, I don't believe you.
And you still didn't address the fact that you are ignoring the MS-LPL, MS-LRL, and MS-RSL, as well as several other licenses that they call "shared source".
Thats quite a stretch. Given your viewpoint, I'm surprised you werent here ranting when MPL was released, that it looks too much like GPL. Or CDDL. Or CPL. Or EPL. Or ECL. Or APL. Or OSL. Or QPL. Or LPL. All of these are OSI categorized licenses that look alot like the GPL, and by your definitions, must be trying to confuse the market with their marks.
Oh wait, maybe its just an industry norm to abbreviate licenses this way. Sure is a lot of prior art in the area.
As to what some employees at MS may or may not intend with these license names are impossible to know, but ultimately irrelevant.
No reasonable human being would confuse MS-PL, MS-LPL, or MS-RL with GPL or LGPL. It just isnt going to happen.
No reasonable human being would confuse one of the restricted licenses like MS-RSL with an open source (as used by OSI) license/software. And you still didn't address the fact that you are ignoring the MS-LPL, MS-LRL, and MS-RSL, as well as several other licenses that they call "shared source". I'm not sure in what way I'm 'ignoring' them, given that we're sitting here talking about them. It's trivial to go look at the license text on microsoft.com and see what they are.
The 'Limited' versions of MS-PL and MS-RL restrict the use to just windows. It's not that complicated.
The MS-RSL is a 'view-only' license, and they're quite clear about that here. The Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) is the most restrictive of the Microsoft source code licenses. The license prohibits all use of source code other than the viewing of the code for reference purposes. The intent of this license is to enable licensors to release, for review purposes only, more sensitive intellectual property assets. So given how easy it is to understand what those licenses you mention are, I'm not sure what your complaint is.
Are you complaining that there are restrictive licenses used by Microsoft at all? Or that they all use acronyms and therefore may be confusing (to who?). Or are you suggesting that MS-RSL, MS-LPL, or MS-LRL are too similar to LGPL and GPL to be understandable by a reasonable person?
If the latter, who are these people you're dealing with that cant differentiate between words with different letters?
"Open Linux", "Open GNU", Open Gnome, Open Gimp, Open Mu*sic, Open Co*ntent ....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Open A*rt" ...
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Also, check M$ website for their defined usage of "Windows" as a trademark ... they do ....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Check M$ website for their defined usage of "Windows" as a trademark ... they do .... I agree, Windows is windows in a court of law, but M$ does ownership-spin on the word "Windows" as a trademark (I think from my reading on their website) ... go check.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Yes, and when did all this creative use of the word"Open" start ... not with any of their creative B$.
... all use "Open" for marketing B$ purposes, because it provides market value created by the global "Open Community" reputation. The theft of "Open *" for proprietary/closed purposes and monetary gain has been going on for over a decade now. How much of Java is open (some or all) how long will it take for IBM to do more than "Open lip-service" before they start supporting "Open Technologies/Software" across all their software products.
...).
M$, Apple, HP, Sun, IBM
"Open *" reputation and market value is under continuous covert assault by all the old-iron (1920...60s/70s) technology companies. If they cannot own it, then they must brake it, before the inevitable brakes them (i.e. Big US and Little Japan Auto Industry 1973, Big IBM and Little Apple
Advertising is frequently seen for all the proprietary/closed DMCA/RIAA/M$... products, but "Open *" is seldom seen in public media/news; However, still the growth of "Open *" and the capitalist economic value is growing every year. The old-iron companies are again killing themselves like the dinosaurs.
My main concern is that they love feeding off "Open *" like zombies. The old-iron companies need to be reborn or beheaded/burned and buried, before then do any further harm to capitalism with corporate-welfare legal protections and handouts.
Corporate-welfare recipients are ruining US!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?