|
Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. -- Updated |
|
Monday, July 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
|
I guess you saw the news about Microsoft submitting some licenses to OSI hoping for approval as "open source" licenses. You can watch Bill Hilf of Microsoft giving his talk at OSCON, which is where the stories emanated from.
That, to me, wasn't the news, since a Microsoft license was submitted once before, although I gather not by the company. But what I'm noticing is reactions.
ComputerWorld collected some truly astonishing responses, and if you follow their links, it gets worse. First, though, the reaction that matters, from Michael Tiemann: Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.
"I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday. Why would this need to be said? What nerve Microsoft has to even dream of trying for such a restriction. A license that restricts use to only the Windows operating system. Why would OSI even consider that? Have we lost our minds? At least two years ago, folks began noticing the erosion of the meaning of "Open Source" by Microsoft. It moves like a glacier, but while it may be slow, it's hard to be in a glacier's path and win. But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know it, and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image. All that will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I have always seen the need for both, and I hope OSI has the vision to see what needs to happen next.
But will they? Get a load of these reactions to the announcement about the license submission: "This is a huge, long-awaited move," Tim O'Reilly, CEO of O'Reilly Media Inc., wrote in his blog. If the shared-source licenses are accepted by the OSI, he added, "it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open-source community." O'Reilly Media sponsored the conference at which Hilf made the announcement. And blurring that line is good? Why? I hate to say this after they gave me an award and everything, but the fact is, Microsoft was also a Diamond Sponsor of OSCON. Worse, is the reaction from Matt Asay, and it's worse because he's on the OSI board: Tim's comments seem to reflect a belief that it's the community, not Microsoft, that has been barricading Microsoft out. The truth is mostly the opposite. Most of us would love to have Microsoft participate in open source.
The real news in this is that Microsoft recognizes what many "open source" companies apparently do not. Namely, that while others have groused about the OSI being out of touch with their efforts to dilute the value of "open source," Microsoft clearly understands the importance of the OSI. By contributing its shared-source licenses to the OSI for approval, it cements this fact and shows that it respects the community. Odd that Microsoft should grok the community so well when many so-called open-source companies clearly do not.
I welcome this move by Microsoft. It continues to impress me as being one of the few big companies that truly understands open source, even if I don't always like how it works with the open-source community.
Let me please clarify something for you. Most of us do *not* want Microsoft to participate. I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it alters its negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and FOSS. And so should you. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't invite them to speak at conferences or take their money. I know. That's the hard part for some. I wouldn't pretend the company isn't what it is, because it *is* what it is. This is starting to feel like Wonderland, where Alice finds that up is down and large is small and nothing is the same or logical. Think tea party strange.Why would anyone want Microsoft to participate? Seriously. Why? And no, patent deals with Novell don't make me like them. I despise them for what they did, and I know what it means. They intend to coopt Linux, destroy the GPL, and hop on board to make some money, honey. Oh, and kill it if it doesn't wish to be ridden, while isolating and rendering pointless and helpless all developers who won't go along. Why would you hope for that? Seriously. Why?
I hope you are taking notes, everyone, because there is a line being drawn in the sand, and everyone will have to make a decision, one way or another. I gather from Port 25's article that Microsoft is going to pack the OSI membership and then get what it likes. That is how I read this statement: Although open source at Microsoft and the OSI are two different animals, I would submit to you that both are at a point in their maturity where their constituencies need to become more involved to maintain growth.
While it’s important to focus on the needs of a growing community membership, it’s also important to remember why you started it in the first place. In Microsoft’s case, the reason is simple: Customers. IT professionals told us they wanted both platform choices and platform interoperability. Developers told us that they wanted more open collaboration and that the language of that collaboration is code. In response, Microsoft has reached interoperability agreements with several key vendors of open source software, CodePlex is now supporting 2,000 collaborative development projects, and the features of CodePlex itself are largely driven by the votes of the community.
Today, we reached another milestone with the decision to submit our open licenses to the OSI approval process, which, if the licenses are approved, should give the community additional confidence that the code we’re sharing is truly Open Source. I believe that the same voices that have been calling for Microsoft products to better interoperate with open source products would voice their approval should the Open Source Initiative itself open up to more of the IT industry.
So what about the flip side of the OSI becoming a membership organization? Could they really be voted out of existence or rendered ineffective? It doesn’t seem likely to me. Participation in the OSI and adherence to OSI licensing guidelines and Open Source definitions is entirely voluntary. If it isn’t serving the best interests of the community, the community will go elsewhere. Anyone considering an effort to “vote the organization into the ground” would surely realize that such heavy handedness would be self-defeating. That’s not to say that a new membership structure wouldn’t lead to change, but I believe that these changes would have to be the result of vigorous consensus building and that’s probably not a bad thing. Hardy har. Like Microsoft worries about being viewed as "heavy-handed". Remember Massachusetts? What it tried to do to Peter Quinn? If Microsoft does to OSI what it's been doing to technical committees voting on OOXML, speaking of heavy-handed, I think "consensus" is just another word for taking over by packing the numbers. In fact, when Michael Tiemann wrote about the idea of OSI becoming a membership organization, he asked that very question: And what should be the process? And how should it be done? And how can we protect ourselves if 50,000 people who want to destroy open source decide they want to join and vote us into the ground? How indeed? That's the right question, all right, because it acknowledges reality. But isn't it obvious now, at this juncture, that defining Open Source as just "open code" is not sufficient? If it's just about having fun and writing great code, why shouldn't Microsoft join in? Microsoft indeed can do that. But if it's about end users being free to do what they want with software, then that definition isn't nearly good enough to protect them. And does Microsoft want to be an Open Source company? Puh-lease. They may want you to think that, but Steve Ballmer just told the world that it can't embrace that model: "Open source has been the issue that surrounds us. Could a commercial model like Microsoft compete with open source? And we've worked very hard on making the value of a commercial company surpass what the open-source community can deliver, because frankly, it's not a business model we can embrace. It's inconsistent with shareholder value." Does it get any clearer? And if they have no intention of adopting that business model, the right question is: why are they proposing open source licenses?
No. Really.
To pick off developers, silly, for starters and to start the usual Embrace, Extend, Extinguish junk. There is nothing new under the sun, Hilf or no. That statement tells me that as long as Ballmer is heading up Microsoft, the company has no good intentions toward FOSS when it tries for an embrace, and its moves toward open source licenses are not about wanting to be more open, and since Ballmer heads the company, it doesn't matter what Bill Hilf says or does. I understand some may feel there are factions inside Microsoft, and they may well be trying to give the faction hoping to take the company more open some public support. But I am free to just tell you the truth as I see it. Indeed, I believe Microsoft will embrace Open Source only enough to Embrace, Extend and Extinguish it as it now exists and replace it with its own extended "Brand Microsoft" monopoly version, one that just happens to benefit and fit in to Microsoft's business model and that isn't open at all as far as control is concerned. By the way, guys, check those license submissions carefully. Do they exclude the GPL? Do they exclude sublicensing or allow it only if the sublicensee contacts Microsoft to get permission? How about if a licensee sells the company? Is this all just a wicked game?
That is all "interoperability" means to Microsoft, I fear, a way to beat the competition in a devilish way, smiling as they stab the knife in Open Source's back. And all the time, they'll be mocking the community's definitions by seeming compliance, while twisting them with that ever-ready knife. If the twists are slow enough, by the time you wake up, it'll all be over. In that connection, I suggest you look very, very carefully at the IronRuby initiative. The first rule with Microsoft proposals has to be: look for the devilish part. It won't be obvious.
Here's the license for it, Microsoft's Permissive Licence, one of the shared source licenses. Is it Open Source? Is that the only question we should be asking? Here's another. Is IronRuby Ruby? Or is it a Microsoft-extended brand of Ruby, kind of like OpenXML (how I hate that use of the word open to confuse people, by the way) is XML but it's got extensions that are Microsoft-only or Microsoft-best. Ruby with a Microsoft twist. In Ruby's case, my understanding is that it started as Ruby.NET under the MIT license. Microsoft has added some WPF functions to it. WPF stands for Windows Presentation Foundation. Some would tell you that WPF threatens an open web, the W3c standards, and
basically anything involved with the open Internet. I don't know, not being a programmer, but that's what I hear. WPF comes preinstalled in Vista. I gather it's what makes Silverlight hum Microsoft's way. For me, it's enough of a warning that Miguel likes the MPL as he did the patent deal and all things Microsoft. He says the license is "by all intents and purposes an open source
license". Whose intents? And whose purposes? Remember Lily Tomlin's old joke? If love is the answer, can you rephrase the question? And if this is "by all intents and purposes an open source license" then maybe it's time to look at that definition again. [ Update: I'm told Miguel is mocking me in response, saying I don't know what I'm talking about. So let me make things clearer for him and those who listen to him when he tells us that this license is for all intents and purposes Open Source. Look at this page, where Microsoft itself describes the Permissive License: There is no obligation for licensees to publish any changes they make in either binary or source code form. Thank you, Microsoft, for making the legalese clearer for those who have trouble understanding it. My thanks to Egan Orian at the Inquirer for noting that description page. OK, Miguel. Please explain to us, mockingly or not at your option, how that is Open Source. You probably want to read the Open Source Definition before you begin. Note paragraph 2, Source Code: 2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. So. To all intents and purposes the Microsoft license is Open Source? Please elaborate so we can all follow the bouncing ball. And for the rest of you who care about the GPL, please note this description: Licensees may also charge a licensing fee for the modified work. Think that makes that licensed stuff incompatible with the GPL? So, IronRuby is under this license. Okie Dokie. And how about this tidbit: Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that may be chosen for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. If Microsoft really wants to be interoperable with FOSS, all it needs to do is follow standards. That's it. Then there is no need for "special relationships" with those willing to use a license that "enables positive interaction" with Windows developers. Want to see what interoperability means to Microsoft even when one is in a partnership? Take a look at what Mac owners are going through.[end update]
Here's how one Microsoft guy explains IronRuby:
Ruby.NET and IronRuby are separate Ruby implementations for .NET.
Ruby.NET was started at Queensland University in Australia. You can
find more details about it here: www.plas.fit.qut.edu.au/rubynet
IronRuby uses some of the Ruby.NET code (Microsoft licensed it), but
uses the DLR library for implementing the dispatching and code
compilation. Separate implementations. Yup. Just like ODF and PDF. Microsoft can't play nicely with others, folks. It has to have its own, and if you are stoopid, you will help them take over the world. Guess who won't be allowed to play in that world, by the way? The GPL and true FOSS. You think?
So let's say you are the the Devil at Microsoft. You write a license just good enough to squeeze past OSI. Now you announce to the world that Ruby... I mean IronRuby... is released under an Open Source, OSI-approved license. Yay! says the world. Welcome to the Open Source community. We're sure Microsoft will play fair.
Why would they start now?
So lots of dumb developers who only care about great code will run and help them make IronRuby great code. Now what have you done? What happens to Ruby? How hard is it then to add a twist of the knife? Let's look at the license again, in the Conditions and Limitations section: (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. It can be harmonious and still add proprietary little twists that make it so Ruby doesn't quite work well any more, and only IronRuby fills the needs of those customers everyone is pretending are driving the wagon here.
The same thing is happening to PDF and ODF. Microsoft is proposing its own alternatives, under the guise of "choice". It's a game, folks, and they're playing to win. But they can't win if you don't play. If you want the world to remain a software monopoly, keep it up. It's what you will get. That license may not directly violate any OSI requirements; but does it affirmatively meet them?
If you do play and that is the future for Open Source, you can have it. It loses all meaning to me. I didn't leave Microsoft products behind so I can find them again in a new guise. I don't trust that company. I shouldn't, after all I went through running their software. Words don't matter to me. They always talk pleasantly, except for Ballmer. But actions are what matter. And Microsoft is an Open Source company only if the earth actually is flat and the sun totally revolves around it after all.
Update: I notice on this Silverlight page, it describes it as offering Ruby and Python, not IronRuby and IronPython: Silverlight offers a flexible programming model that supports AJAX, VB, C#, Python, and Ruby, and integrates with existing Web applications. Silverlight supports fast, cost-effective delivery of high-quality video to all major browsers running on the Mac OS or Windows. Gentlemen, I've done my part to point out the issue. The rest is up to you.
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Please note any mistakes in the article under this post.
Thanks. --- "You interact with a computer differently when you can trust
it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- the the Devil -> the Devil - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- in -> is - 2nd to last paragraph - Authored by: alisonken1 on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- The same [in] happening to PDF n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- the community's definitions by [seeming -> prending? to be in] compliance,...n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- "Queensland University" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- MIT->QUT, Overreaction to IronRuby - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- Purpose of WPF - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- Think tea party strange.Why would anyone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 06:43 AM EDT
- OCaml & F#, similar situation to Ruby & IronRuby - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Let´s stay away from... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:37 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me even from the beginning the OSI was
out to split the F/OSS community and tried to position itself against the FSF.
Didn't they recently even have an OSI president refer to "drinking
Stallman's Kook Aid".
IMHO these guys are even worse than Novell because a lot of people can see
through what Novell's doing; while a lot of the same people seem to fall for the
OSI's FUD. (that, and at least Novell contributes useful source code back;
and I can't think of anything the OSI's given us except anti-FSF FUD).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Wait! Wait... let me think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: TedSwart on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- typo corrected =) - Authored by: sumzero on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- I fully agree with you Peter. Well said. (n/t) - Authored by: jbb on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- A pig by another name... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: darthaggie on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: steve_l on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: TedSwart on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Yup, seems that way to me too - Authored by: dmarker on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- They kicked Tom Paine out... - Authored by: wethion on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: RussNelson on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- I'm Doing My "Felix Pace" Because Of Additional Questions - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Ignore OSI - They're useless - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- I'm Doing My "Felix Pace" Because Of Additional Questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- Editable PDF?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Editable PDF?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- Editable PDF?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:25 AM EDT
- Editable PDF?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Editable PDF?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- I'm Doing My "Felix Pace" Because Of Additional Questions - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- I'm Doing My "Felix Pace" Because Of Additional Questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- Is Vista a bigger bomb than we realize? - Authored by: tgape on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 03:10 AM EDT
- why do we need them? - Authored by: giskard on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 06:17 AM EDT
- Seems the OSI's always been trying to split the F/OSS community. - Authored by: RussNelson on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Please place off topic comments under this one. Thanks. --- "You
interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable."
--from a blog comment, 2007-07 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Devil Went Down to OSI - Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Article on How to Win Favour With Microsoft - Authored by: Morosoph on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- [OT] - Romania votes YES for ECMA 376 - OOXML - Authored by: Ady on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Newspicks..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- New filing on IBM docket today! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- SCOX: much painting, no gain - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Acer pre-installing Ubuntu says Inquirer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 05:30 AM EDT
- Hmm...Gonna Need A Couple Of Changes Here.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Japan Votes No with Comments on "OOXML" - Authored by: Mad Geek on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Increase in JTC1 SC34 Membership - Authored by: Mad Geek on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- Looking for slow jazz music - Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- A worse example of code fixes by a proprietary company that isnt even open source - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- No to "Open (to be taken/ripped/twisted/abused) Licenses! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Get 'em, PJ. --- "You interact with a computer differently when you can
trust it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
...when free software claimed to be it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
How can Microsoft be promoting interoperability by releasing code that can only
be run under Windows? Isn't that a fundamental contradiction?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kjb on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Thanks, PJ
---
keithdotburt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gbl on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Microsoft almost killed Java at birth by the simple method of producing a ever
so slightly incompatible version when they could have just provided the
necessary extensions via the built in mechanism (but which would have not caused
the compatibility problems that apparently was the aim all along.)
Microsoft
dumped all kinds of garbage into HTML (outdoing Netscape by a fair amount) that
only IE could love.
Microsoft produced a version of BASIC that was so messed
up that even now, brief exposure can cause insanity.
Microsoft want to
create an international standard that sets in stone a spreadsheet date handling
bug.
To a normal person complexity for the sake of it is annoying. To a
monopoly, complexity is a way of maintaining and extending the monopoly without
having to explain itself to a government department.
No small company can
afford the development of a Open XML compliant clone; the standard is internally
incomplete and I'm willing to bet that deep within it there is a trapdoor
waiting for the unwary. Even if by some miracle a clone was created, by the
time it was ready I'm sure that Open XML 2.0 would be on the standards track and
development would have to continue. A trivial change for Microsoft may mean a
million dollar development project for another company to duplicate. Thus
complexity supports monopoly.
--- If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we
know it, and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image. All that
will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software. Personally, I hope that
doesn't happen. I have always seen the need for both, and I hope OSI has the
vision to see what needs to happen next.
I think you're bemoaning
the potential loss of a marketing term. Microsoft CANNOT change the
meaning of linux. All it can do is co-opt an adjective.
We are not an
adjective! We are free men! Er. People! If we need to re-brand, I'm sure we can
find some intelligent marketing ideas, rebrand, register some trademarks, and
actually create a (new brand)SI organisation that will actually police the new
brand. I doubt that will be necessary though.
MTO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
About the quoted comments by Matt Asay, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on him.
To me, his statement is a fairly accomplished piece of diplomacy, but read it
again and note that he never even hints that he's in favor of approving these
licenses.
For OSI to do its job properly, it should be all about the licenses and not
about who submitted them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
PJ,
Im appalled. You speak with such hate. You are your own worst enemy...
Your failure to compromise with anyone over anything shall put you in the same
place as the people you despise, irrelavence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Look who's talking! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- no worries - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: robobright on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Speak with hate ? - Authored by: dmarker on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: TedSwart on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:09 AM EDT
- Dear Steve Ballmer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- smooth... real smooth... - Authored by: grundy on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- A communication from M$ Central... - Authored by: Stevieboy on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 07:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cmc on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
From I have read, Tim O'Reilly has had his head up his orifice for a long time
now. He has lost touch with reality (as evidenced by his constant raving of
"Web 2.0"). I don't even listen to anything he says anymore. But in
response to his rambling, I would ask who has been waiting for this. I would
then point out that the line in the sand will always be there, even as the tide
rises and ebbs, never vanishing from sight. It's not so much the license that
makes open source what it is. It's the thoughts and ideas behind it. That is
something that O'Reilly obviously doesn't get (judging from his own comments).
As for Matt Asay, he needs to buy a clue. Microsoft doesn't value OSI any more
than it values FSF. Microsoft doesn't "clearly understand the importance
of the OSI". What Microsoft DOES understand the importance of (and always
has) is appearance. They know that if PHBs (pointy-haired bosses, as in the
Dilbert comic) see this, then they'll be more likely to listen to Microsoft when
they (Microsoft) says "it's the OS community, not us" when things
don't go right. Microsoft will be able to say to them "we're trying, but
they're stonewalling us". It's all about appearance and PR.
As for the phrase "open source", I think there are as many definitions
as there are people. I would venture a bet that Microsoft is using the
old-school definition, which is literally source that is open. Meaning that
under a strict licensing agreement, the licensee is allowed to access and modify
the source for their own use. No showing it to anyone else, and no distributing
it or any modification or derivative work of it. Like UNIX back in the day.
That was open source. But not open source the way most people view that term
today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
As soon as this news broke (several days ago), I wondered just how Groklaw was
going to manage to spin it as a negative. I love Groklaw for the great job it
does reporting on the SCO case - mainly because despite everything SCO has done
to NOT deserve it, PJ always sticks to the facts and gives even SCO a fair
hearing at all times.
What I don't understand is why - when SCO, of all people, can get a fair
hearing, Microsoft can't.
Note: I'm NOT saying Microsoft hasn't done LOTS of things wrong and I'm not
saying that their actions shouldn't be treated with utmost suspicion. But
there's a difference between treating them with <em>suspicion</em>
and treating them with contempt. Microsoft does, occasionally, do things right.
You say "I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it
alters its negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and
FOSS." But isn't attempting to get approval from the community, as they are
doing now, precisely an indication that they ARE - in some small, slow,
"glacial" ways - trying to alter their behavior towards the GPL and
FOSS? When someone else tried to submit the license to the OSI, Microsoft
pointedly responded that they had no interest in OSI approval and didn't want
anything to do with the phrase Open Source thankyouverymuch. Now they're coming
back with their tail between their legs and saying "actually, pretty please
could you approve us?" Surely if you want to alter Microsoft's attitude
towards FOSS, moves like this should be encouraged.
You also managed to thoroughly distort the nature of the licenses that are being
submitted. Notice that Tiemann said that "three out of five of Microsoft's
shared-source licenses" are clearly not Open Source. Everyone who's been
following Microsoft's Shared Source program with the slightest bit of attention
has known this for ages. The OTHER two are the ones that are being submitted for
approval, and at least one of those is highly likely to qualify - their
"permissive" license is pretty much a BSD/MIT-like license with a
patent grant. The other one (the "community" license) is an attempt at
a sort of copyleft and I haven't done enough research to state an opinion on
whether it should qualify or not.
The interesting thing is that of all the "shared source" software that
I've seen Microsoft release in the past few months, every one where I've
bothered to check the license has been under the Permissive license. This
includes some real valuable code that's important to their future strategies -
small but core parts of future versions of ASP.NET and their Dynamic Language
Runtime are available as Open Source today.
The nice thing about the Open Source Definition is that it keeps everybody
honest - if you release under a license that meets the OSD, it doesn't matter if
you're a hobbyist student developer or the biggest evilest corporation in the
world, your code IS for evermore available for the world to use on equal
footing. And Microsoft is doing that now, in a small way.
Of course we should sleep with one eye open to make sure they're not going to
stab us in the back, but when they DO do something right like this we shouldn't
be criticizing them for it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I wondered... - Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Mo..Mo...Mo..Mo$quito... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Proprietary Software -- Preach, Sister, Preach! - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- Microsoft cannot afford to be open and collaborative - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- Kill or subvert Microsoft? - Authored by: RussNelson on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Permissive Licenses are Open Source - Authored by: mattflaschen on Saturday, August 04 2007 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Seeking acceptance is not innately good! - Authored by: rocky on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- "Microsoft does, occasionally, do things right." - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 09:10 PM EDT
- Once a thief.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:48 PM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:47 AM EDT
- The problem. - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Cyberdog on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: sab39 on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 12:55 AM EDT
- Hear, Hear. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- What are you wondering with? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 08:39 AM EDT
- re: I wondered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:37 PM EDT
- you're mistaken - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- Same as I wouldn't let ........ - Authored by: Stevieboy on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 07:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
It looks just like a BSD/MIT-style permissive license -- in fact, it's not
obvious to me that it's not combinable with other licenses; the only hold-up
might be the patent termination bit.
Could you perhaps tell us *how* you see the license could be used for evil?
It's not at all obvious to me from reading it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
I saw this article upcomming on Digg.
http://www.sutor.com/news
ite/blog-open/?p=1762
Bob Sutor’s Open Blog: No is no, to
OOXML
I’ve heard several reports of supporters of OOXML
trying to get national standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with
comments” to “YES with comments” because “it’s the same thing.” The logic, which
I’ll explain in a later post, is that any comments will trigger a ballot
resolution meeting, so there is no need to be so negative and vote
NO.
This is ridiculous.
The mathematics of the voting process
very much differentiates between YES and NO votes. Submit comments, please,
pointing out the technical issues of why OOXML should not become a JTC1
(ISO/IEC) standard, but also vote NO to confirm your statement and intent. This
is very important.
It’s amazing that anyone could even suggest that
“since you want to reject it, you should vote for it,” but such is what we’re
dealing with.
It would be hard to make this stuff
up.
I didn't know if you had seen this yet.--- The
price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
I think that you mean to say that Migel likes the MSPL (Microsoft Permissive)
not the MPL (Mozilla Public). This is linked to Scott Guthries blog.
The .Net plaform is a set of Windows (and Mono) hosted language agnostic
library. WPF is just another .NET library (part of .NET 3 to be precise) - once
Iron Ruby is a dot net language then it can access WPF - nothing needs to be
added to .
WPF allows very pretentious user interfaces to be developed very easily. Think
of the CSS Zen Garden style adaptions to a user interface.
WPF is a windows only technology.
Silverlight which is Microsofts Flash killer is a cut down version of WPF that
is intended to be portable across platforms and currently runs in a browser. MS
are providing the windows implementation and letting someone else cover the
other platforms (at what cost...).
Iron Ruby is a .NET implementation of Ruby in the same way that Jython is an
implementation of Python that runs under the Java Virtual Machine. Iron Ruby
would not need any special twists - the catch is the .NET library.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
Speaking as someone with a middle-to-fair knowledge of Ruby and its
implementation, I'd say that while I generally agree with the gist of your
analysis, the interesting factor is how few (relative) resources IronRuby seems
to have had thrown at it. Some code was licensed in, and as far as I can tell
the team that is producing IronRuby within MS is three, maybe four people. Not
what you'd expect if it were a strategic move, especially given how difficult a
language Ruby is to implement in the first place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
In many respects, this is merely how Microsoft functions. While I certainly
agree with PJ that they are not doing any good for F/OSS at the moment -
Microsoft has historically taken a long time to change. First, they outright
deny something (e.g. F/OSS is bad and does no good), then they start to come
around to it and are two faced (e.g. still up with the 'bad and does no good'
montra, but starting to implement similar things itself); then it takes it on
(e.g. starts to drop the 'bad and does no good' montra, and starts showing off
its own stuff), then goes full fledge into it.
This is how they did the Web. At first, they flat out denied that the web would
play any role. Then they started to accept it, and eventually started work on
IE, which sucked at first; as they got more behind it they poured more resources
into IE, and eventually made a good version (IE4/5/5.5/6). (Yes, I could
personally could not stand Netscape for years; only until Phoenix/Firefox came
along did I switch over because the interface was at least as good if not
better, and standards were better followed. But I still look at Netscape and say
'it sucks'.) Then they kind of ignored it for a while - and now IE sucks again
with IE7 - but are behind it still. This is partly because while they get behind
something, it doesn't mean they get it.
With respect to F/OSS, Microsoft has released a number of tools under the GPL
and other OSI approved licensed (e.g. wix.sf.net - which apparently is heavily
used at Microsoft). Now they simply want their class of 'Shared Source' licenses
on the list too - somewhat ok as it will mean the possibility of Office and
Windows eventually being able to be open sourced. That doesn't mean they get it
- but they're coming around.
Don't get me wrong - I'm an avid Linux advocate and user; but the only (stress
only) way Microsoft with beat Linux is if it fully open sources its products -
especially Windows and Office. They just don't stand a chance otherwise in the
long run. With Gates stepping down, the new guys may get that and move the
company in that direction. But they do realize that its life or death for them.
(They don't want to become another IBM, though they are very likely to do so.)
What does this mean for OSI, Linux, F/OSS? Well, not too much really. (This is
perhaps one of few times - if ever before - that I would say PJ may be over
blowing it, though I could very well be wrong.) If Microsoft gets one of its
licenses approved by OSI, then it will damage Microsoft more than it will OSI,
F/OSS, or Linux. Why? Because they've put so much resources behind showing how
evil Linux, F/OSS, and OSI are, only to join them in the end - they will have to
turn around on their FUD about it to save their own face - not an easy thing to
do with how much FUD they've put out.
But this is a necessary step for Windows and Office to be open sourced. So,
hopefully some of the new management that will come along in the next few
decades - which will have different visions than the present and past
management, and more complementary to and in line with F/OSS - will get that
vision and make Microsoft better for it. It'll certainly be a slow process, but
it can happen.
Here's hoping.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
If Microsoft really wanted to cooperate with the Open Source and Free
Software communities, it could do it very simply. Here's how to make a
start:
- Start implementing standard protocols, instead of
incompatible Microsoft versions of them. The specifications they need are freely
available; for example, the specifications they need for a standards-conforming
web browser are on the
W3C web
site.
- Stop pressuring hardware companies to require non-disclosure
agreements for programmimg specifications.
- Work with standards bodies
instead of trying to hijack them (see Groklaw reports of Microsoft's efforts at
ISO meetings in Spain).
- Follow the Internet tradition of openness (see
the
RFCs). For example, publish the
complete SMB protocol. Microsoft took what it needed from the Internet community
to connect to the Internet. Now it wants to hijack the Internet, and make
Microsoft operating systems the only useful gateway to it.
- It would
also help Microsoft's credibility if it stopped trying divide-and-conquer
tactics against our community - e.g. the deal with Novell.
Until
Microsoft starts following that path, PJ's comments are absolutely right. We
don't want anything to do from Microsoft. It has excluded itself from the
community of decent, responsible citizens. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
ComputerWorld: Microsoft not so 'open'
after all?
http://tinyurl.com/2zb95p
M
icrosoft not so 'open' after all?
Head of open-source group says
more than half of licenses don't pass muster
July 29, 2007
(Computerworld) -- The head of the open-source group that will decide whether to
certify Microsoft Corp.'s "shared source" software licenses as open-source
licenses said that more than half of Redmond's licenses appear to automatically
fail the group's rules.
Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit
Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's
shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows
operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as
laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use,
modify as they see fit.
"I am certain that if they say Windows-only
machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said
Tiemann in an interview late Friday.
--- The price of
freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
As I think about this I see this more as a move to comply with the EU
directives against them.
It appears to me that the EU is sticking to
it's guns to get Microsoft to open up it's technologies so better
interoperability can be achieved. If that is the conclusion that Microsoft has
reached internally then the next question has to be how to achieve that as
cheaply as possible.
One way would be to get a license accepted by the
OSI and then release the appropriate source under that license. After all what
better explanation of a technology than the code that implements it?
I
can see Microsoft wanting to restrict projects like Samba from ripping bits of
their code and plugging it straight in. So the "runs only on Windows" clauses
would be natural.
If this is Microsoft's plan then these licenses don't
matter. The important thing is that the code is released, that other eyes can
examine that code and determine how it works (the methods and concepts if you
like). Then new code can be engineered for the various projects to get better
interoperate with Microsoft's own solutions.
Dobbo [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
The MS Permissive license is an open source license a little bit like a
stripped
down GPL. If you prepare derivative works they have to be under this
license.
You can't make some bits of the software yours.
The Microsoft
Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL) is the same but
restricted
to Windows.
Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL) is the same but you can make bits
yours under any terms you please. Then the other bits get licensed differently
and the software as a whole becomes a legal nightmare.
The Microsoft
Limited Community License (Ms-LCL) is just the Windows
only
version of the
Ms-CL.
The Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) is so people can view
Microsoft
code
without changing it. They have already done this before - those
"view
Windows source code" agreements with major companies that they drew up a
couple of years back. This is not really an open source license in the usual
sense of the term.
Conclusions? I think the MS Permissive license is OK.
The others stink. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Question- why are the troll posts always anonymous? BTW, I do not block
anonymous posts; some of my best friends are anonymous. :-)
PJ, you are preaching to the choir, you know. At work, I am known as an MS
basher- with good cause. I print out articles pertaining to the dark business
side of MS and give them to a friend of mine. And today he told me that if and
when he buys a new computer, he wants to put linux on it. One small step.
I agree with being fair and all, but everyone remember, if it walks like
Microsoft, and talks like Microsoft, it probably is Microsoft.
I am done with them.
Good article, PJ.
---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
Reading all the comments here, one thing is missed.
MS are a Company. They can do what they wish with
whatever they wish in their code/coding terms.
But to actually start to lay mandate to 'standards' and
redefine wording that gets accepted by so
called 'standards' committees/organisations is beyond
belief.
Looking at the OpenXML saga and now this, it looks like MS
are easily winning - easily.
If they can do this to a supposed hiarchy of proven
organisations to deliberately depose all opposition (which
seems to be accepted), what
hope do we have?
Nick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Let's look at business. Business survive because they increase shareholder
value and perpetuate the business. There is no emotions to these facts. The
point is to have 100% market. So in the process they will do anything to kill
the enemy and kill them for good, never to return.
Microsoft is marginalizing your blog PJ. They will kill your credibility by
making "pointing out the obvious" as a negative.
The other business "ethic" is kill the competition from within. Make
them do useless work, tie up their resources, and have them fight among
themselves. S. Ballmer is not stupid, he is very business savy.
The one thing that will kill Microsoft is that they are now General Motors and
with the same slow, mind numbing perspective. They can't strategize for the
future because it changes too quickly - they can only react. What they are
missing is that their product is just okay and nothing great. Maintaining the
money tree has now made them old and inflexible. It too bad I use to like their
products, but they don't provide me with what I want anymore. Only what they
want. They are not returning shareholder value anymore...I vote with my wallet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They don't even react any more - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- Marginalizing Groklaw? How? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Wrong, wrong, wrong. - Authored by: Cyberdog on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- As PJ mentioned a while back ceratin psters are MS trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. - Authored by: Darigaaz on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Business Ethics - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 06:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: R.A.G. on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
I hate to say this after they gave me an award and everything, but
the fact is,
P.J.
Thats EXACTLY what they gave you the award
for!
As for the Microsoft clearly understands the importance of
the OSI.
Microsoft clearly understands the DANGER of OSI- to
their business model. This is classic embrace and extinguish. Blurring the line
is exactly what they are trying to do. If they can't beat 'em join 'em.
The
choices right now, as Microsoft are concerned, are THEM (FOSS) or US
(Microsoft). The only option they can see now is, "What's all the fuss about?
We're the same as they are. Why would you need to change?".
The only reason
they want to join the club is so they can take over the clubhouse and kick out
all the other members. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
So Microsoft has us coming and going.
But I think everyone would liks MSFT to become part of the Opensource community.
But they never will. They will always seek to dominate or destroy. Like
someone who won't play fair - they won't play at all or insist on cheating.
Microsoft can go opensource any day it chooses, when it posts source under
GPLv3. Until then after shaking hands with someone from them, one ought to
count their fingers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may
do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with
your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or
object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this
license.
I don't quite get the problem with this clause. If you distribute you have to
include the license. If you distribute in object form you have to do it under
this or a compatible license. Is that not what the GPL requires, except with
GPL you also have to provide source always.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
Being the somewhat long-in-the-tooth individual that I am, I grew up in the
1970s and 1980s slap bang at the start of the Microcomputer
revolutions.
Back then we *really* had choices. There were loads of
different types of processors e.g. Z-80, 6502, 6809, TMS9900 and later 680xx,
ARM - the list goes on and many more brans of computers e.g. TRS-80, Commodore
Pet, Sharp MZ-80K, Acorn Atom, Sinclair ZX81
There were literally
dozens of machine operating systems and coupled with these was real
*choice*.
Move on a bit to the mid '80s and you had MS-DOS PCs such as
the Amstrad PC1512, Apple Macs, Atari 520ST, Commodore Amiga, Archimedes and a
vast range of software to choose from. Even on a single platform like
DOS.
Move on a bit more and you get UNIX wars and amazing innovative
systems like the Next Cube and the beginnings of
Windows dominance - but this
was held back by real competition with IBM OS/2 (Warp) and the Apple
Mac.
We (at least) has choices of office software such
as
Lotus Suite
Corel Office
Borland
Office
Microsoft Office
Agility
and Microsoft
competed against these by offering features that people actually wanted - just
imagine!
Now it all seems to be about keeping the market position
nomatter what the cost is to the industry and innovation.
Back then
Microsoft offered *enabling technology* (e.g. when they invented ODBC) that
allowed PC users to *choose* what they wanted to do. Now they are fighting as
hard as they can to take all choices away.
Were are locked into this
Win-Tel architecture that has standardized innovation away.
Why does a
PC have to have a i386 (or AMD64) compatible processor or even a PowerPC
processor?
How about something that saves electrical power but gives
more processing power such as a motherboard with 4 x ARM CPUs on it. This is
what Linux can give us.
Linux is not limited to the Win-Tel architecture
and Microsoft know it. They cannot adapt but Open Source can.
Microsoft
can delay the inevitable for a while but they cannot win in the end. They have
stagnated whilst the open source community have continued to innovate and have
moved on.
People are starting to realise (slowly) about Linux (and other
FOSS operating systems) and open source in general but it is taking a while.
All that Microsoft can do now is to continue a propaganda war but like
equivalent propaganda put out by governments, the truth wins out in the
end.
PJ is doing a great service to open source (and the software
industry as a whole) by continuing to run this web site whilst I and all of you
who use and value open source can get your friends/colleagues/bosses to visit it
and let people see the other side of the arguments.
Innovation will
always win in the end.
--- "There is no spoon?"
"Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it alters
its negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and FOSS. And so
should you.
Absolutely agree.
Except for the
adjectives used. Those are all true, but (IMO) none of them capture the complete
dishonesty and complete lack of ethics or morality in the way MS works. To me,
those elements are the ones I object to most. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skip on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
"But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know it,
and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image"
Not really. My open source project, insignificant though it might be, is *never*
going to be anything but open source, even if I have to write my own license to
achieve it.
I suspect that a great many more interesting and useful projects will be
thinking the same thing.
Microsoft would end up clearing a room, so to speak, only to learn that the
party moved to another house. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
PJ, you said
>>So lots of dumb developers who only care about great code will run and
help them make IronRuby great code. Now what have you done? What happens to
Ruby? How hard is it then to add a twist of the knife? Let's look at the license
again, in the Conditions and Limitations section:
I don't know why there cannot be seperate implementations. Take Java for
instance, There are java implementations by multiple companies. Even take linux
kernel implementation. Redhat took the vanilla kernel and modify it to fit their
needs and so does ubuntu. So One might say why not all companies use the Vanilla
Kernel ?
The point is You are FREE to do what you want.The same with Ruby. Innvoation
happens by modifiying and hacking. So Just because they developed IronPython, it
doesn't mean to say they Killed Ruby. Are they forcing anybody to adopt
IronPython?
and again talking of Iron Ruby licensing, it seems to be similar to GPL.
>>If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code
form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
GPL also defaults grants everybody rights to distribute the code and make the
code GPL and that license also seems to do the same way. I don't know whats
wrong with this.
It seems to me, even if companies are willing to come interms with free
software, you are not even willing to be open minded. As long as they play by
the rules, it should be fine. Simply bashing them for no reason is not going to
help.
My 2 cents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- some q's - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 10:10 PM EDT
- some q's - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- some q's - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- some q's - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT
- some answers - Authored by: RTH on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:28 AM EDT
- some answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 04:38 AM EDT
- some q's - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT
|
Authored by: JesseW on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 10:17 PM EDT |
I found an electronic record of the case filed by Sony against their
suppliers who made some of the malware Sony put on audio CDs a while back. It's
in the NY Supreme Court's online database SCROLL, but not in the
"assigned to a Judge" CCIS database, only in the "filed with the County Clerk"
CCOP database. In any case, the index number is: 602201-2007, the full
list of defendants and plaintiffs is BMG MUSIC vs AMERGENCE GROUP INC and MEDIA
MAX TECHNOLOGY CORP; and SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT vs AMERGENCE GROUP INC.
The record confirms that the summons was filed on July 3, 2007, and that is all
that has been filed.
Sadly, the summons does not appear to have been scanned
in yet. Now that I have the index number, I'll call the court again tomorrow
and see if they can mail me a copy of the summons, and how much that might
cost.
Again, if there are any New Yorkers around who can help with this,
please speak up...
(This is a copy of this post, which is part of the
thread where this is being discussed, back in the article on MSOOXML in
Portugal.)
--- (Contact me for comment licensing, e.g. GPL, CC, PD,
etc.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
'Open Source (tm)' was always a made-up marketing term, specifically designed to
erode the meaning of free software. It is no surprise that MS has to do little
to hijack the term, it was always weak and meaningless.
I am dissapointed that you, PJ, continue to use this term, and that you bother
to give OSI - another made-up organisation - as much credit as you do. OSI is
pretty meaningless in the scheme of things, and they should be given less
airtime not more.
Michael Zucchi (once a free software developer - Evolution)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
...if it still has any, can be seen in the IBM Patent
Pledge, which applies to licenses accepted by OSI as Open Source as of
January 11, 2005. IBM is not foolish--they covered the possibility of hostile
(i. e., Microsoft) action against OSI. --- --Bill P, not a
lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: josmith42 on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
There seem to be a lot of trolls on this article, for whatever reason. I
wish to precede my comment with this: I am not one of them. Or at least I do
not wish to be.
With that said, I shall opine that Microsoft is
actually capable of playing well with others, if there is no alternative. Take
their C++ compiler that ships with Visual Studio 2005. It is actually not that
far away from compliance with the ISO C++ standard.
I work for a
company that develops a cross platform application (Windows and Mac), so it's
paramount that the code we write be portable. It follows then that having two
standards-compliant compilers would make that easier. Now,
Mac uses gcc, and
it probably goes without saying that gcc is more standards-compliant than
Microsoft's compiler. We do occasionally get instances where code that compiles
on Windows won't compile on Mac, but it's actually quite
rare.
Warning: pure and boundless speculation follows! I think
the reason they decided to make their C++ compliant is because they tried to do
their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish thing with C++, and it backfired on them. I
would venture to say that many, if not most, C++ programmers (myself included)
value code portability, and standards non-compliance compilers do not help with
that.
--- This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
I have just realised what this is all about. Microsoft wants developers to
create cool code for THEM to use. Take another look at the "permissive" license
terms: If you distribute any portion of the software in source
code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license
that complies with this license. In other words all MS has to do
is take someone else's source code distribution, modify it a bit and distribute
it as object code. They are not obliged, as under the GPL to provide the source
code. It's not embrace and extend, then extinguish. It's embrace and gather,
republish and make a mint. Publish some half-baked product, get the "community"
to finish it, and then take it back. A little bit like the way they say UNIX was
developed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Logic failure - Authored by: Cyberdog on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Really - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 12:43 AM EDT
- Really - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 01:40 AM EDT
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
Yes, I have complete disdain for those like Tim O'Reilly and Matt Asay who
support the promotion of MS's new license when it can easily be seen that both
people will benefit financially from supporting MS. They are actually discarding
the FOSS community to support their bottom line.
There is nothing that MS can do, other than full implementation of the GPL,
that does not afford MS the ability to either mame or kill the GPL and the open
source community. MS has no intent on working with the OS community, ever. The
GPL is a major thorn in their side and their license proposal is an outright
assault on the GPL.
MS is looking for a foot in the door so they can throw in their canister of
poison. If head corporate leaders like Tim O'Reilly don't understand the past 20
years of MS business practices then maybe Groklaw should attempt to enlighten
Tim about this new license proposal.
Go for it PJ. I completely agree with your assessment of the new license
submission to OSI.
Remember that the GPL not only gives developers the right to use, manipulate
and distribute updates, it also enables those privileges on all platforms. This
is the antithesis of what Corporate Software companies have practiced and
believe at to the core of their corporate entity. This should be very easy for
everybody to understand and this is why MS will do anything to kill the GPL,
even if it takes another 100 years to do so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
Any suggestions? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RTH on Monday, July 30 2007 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
From http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingba
sics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx
(F) Platform Limitation- The
licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or
derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating
system product.
One might think that M$ have shot themselves
in the foot. Almost any Linux program I write will run on Windows + Cygwin. It
says "works that run", not "works targetted to," or "works that only
run..."
But that is not the real game: Your licence is only
for:
- "the software" or
- "derivative works that you
create.
In other words, you can use the original software, or you
can modify it and use it yourself. But the modified work that you created cannot
be used by others to whom you might convey it, because they did not create it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
Wow. The Microsoft shills and trolls are angry at this one. Funny how that
works, just like thieves, they will say anything to persuade you or distort the
truth.
PJ has once again called it correctly. Microsoft's intentions for Open Source
are purely malicious. Period.
The only accurate analogy of this issue is a paradox. No individual, no company
can condemn and embrace an issue at the same time. The OSI knows better and will
be judged on how they handle this one.
It's hard not to get angry at Microsoft and all their dishonorable trolls and
shills, but for a lack of better advice, just tune them out and keep doing what
we all are doing... Supporting our love of technology and furthering the crusade
of FOSS.
This issue definitely needs to be addressed, but the mere fact that Microsoft is
trying everything under the sun to stop FOSS is proof enough that they are
scared and desperate.
Remember the Halloween Documents? It's all unfolding before us right now. Gotta
love it!
God bless FOSS!
datruth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RTH on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
... while many were waxing lyrical about OSI's "Open Source" pseudo
trademark, I pointed out that this was actually just speaking English for
readable source. If OSI go and give their imprimateur to these M$ licences, it
will highlight the importance of not trying to trademark (or cheering along the
trademarking of) plain old natural language. After all, if OSI had trademarked,
say, "OSIopen", then whether we accepted OSIopen licences would depend
on whether we approved of OSI's policies. And whether we accepted a licence
described as "open source" would depend on whether, we really did
judge it to BE open source. But when a plain English phrase is supposedly
trademarked, then a confusion is set up between thinking in plain English and
thinking in terms of trademark branding. Neither category of thought gets done
properly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited
Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to
the Windows platform only.
Use of software licensed under the
MS-LPL (and the MS-LCL) is tied to another piece of software - Microsoft
Windows. In other words, you have a "royalty free" license to use the software,
but only if you first purchase a license to a separate software product from
Microsoft.
That's an interesting idea. I think I'll start an open source
project and graciously allow all of you to contribute to it. Under the terms of
my new license, the software will be "royalty free", but you have to buy an
overpriced tea mug from me (and me alone) before you can use it. And you
contributors can stop complaining and just be grateful that I'm allowing you to
contribute. Now get cracking writing code while I do my bit and find some cheap
tea mug suppliers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
is that you... Bill Gates ?
or Steve Ballmer ?
or Miguel ?
I can't see the difference from here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
What exactly is the value of yet another license? Even if the OSI only adopts
the MS-PL and not the other MS licenses, is even that one compatible with the
GPL? If not, that should disqualify it right then and there.
http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
Thanks to the OSI, since they created the _license profileration_ problem in
the first place according to that link, not through malice hopefully but
certainly short-sightedness. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
Don't forget Matt went to work for CNet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
Embrace Extend Divide Extinguish [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
I seem to recall that the "permissive" license (or whichever is
actually the most permissive) seemed to my non-lawyerly eyes like it might
actually pass the four fundamental freedoms (whichever one I'm thinking of did
NOT have the platform restriction).
Thus, I'm wondering, what's the best grounds for refusal? I fear that they're
up to something and neither refusal nor acceptance is completely
"safe" per their plans. I assume that acceptance will be used as a
wedge to get people to accept their non permissive licenses and get saddled with
platform restrictions. I presume that denial will be used for FUD purposes,
particularly with respect to OOXML.
So far, the best reason I can come up to refuse is that these licenses offer
nothing new and that license proliferation is not a good thing. I believe that
to be consistent with everything else done and said so far, so it certainly
wouldn't be a rule made up just because few trust Microsoft or anything like
that (even if that is somehow part of the reason).
Can anyone else think of good reasons to refuse? Yeah, the platform restriction
kills three of them easily enough, but what about the last two?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: davidf on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
A number of years ago when I was working as a manager in the music retail
business, a package came from PolyGram (that should tell you how many years ago
this was! ). It was filled with wonderful goodies from the PolyGram catalogue --
all classical, since I was the manger for that part of the retail operation. But
it was clearly addressed to me personally.
When I opened the box and found that it had classical music in it I was
overjoyed. Play copies or demos of the classical catalogue were few and far
between. Not a minute later my stomach did one of those jumps that says be
careful. My next thought was, "What do they want from me?"
Most play or demo copies in the music industry come as part of a promotion or
new release. They have a clear intention behind them. No one ever just sends you
product out of the goodness of their hearts (if they have one). I realised then
that this represented an open ended contract ( if you will) which had no end
payment specified -- it was a blank check for future favours. The box, remained
in the store, used as play copies for in store use only.
When I began to work in broadcasting, the same opportunities presented
themselves. Time after time there were generous offers of one sort or another,
even open invitations which if accepted would cost the music label many dollars.
But we knew, as programmers of a very popular classical music radio show that if
we accepted those offers, a time would come when the label say, play this or
play that and we would be under some obligation to do so. But then who did we
program music for? The recording label? or our audience?
The answer was simple, the audience, of course. We were popular because we knew
our audience and what they wanted to hear. If we handed any control of what we
played to outside interests, we knew our audience would suffer. Changing the
dial on a radio is very easy. So there was an equilibrium; the offers stood; and
so did our firm grip of our own programming decisions.
So it is the same in the IT business. If someone comes bearing many gifts, you
know they want something. Alarm bells should go off if they way they want
nothing in exchange. Interoperability isn't difficult, it doesn't need large
amounts of money, nor does it need donations to the cause, membership in an
organization or a place on the board of directors. It needs action!
True friends come bearing gifts of API's free of patent encumbrances. Those are
the most highly prized gem stones, not an open pocket book! You can trust
Microsoft's intentions when they show up at an open source event with gifts of
open API's and no cheque book.Sun seems to have gotten it, they opened Java and
Solaris.
Apple as well, on occasion, simply opened the source code of projects and did so
under a license which is compatible with the GPL. While their record is not
untarnished, Apple has, in the past even had programers working on a port of
Linux. Microsoft cannot say the same thing.
Who to trust and who not to trust is as clear as water from a mountain stream.
Cheers,
davidf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
Ok, so the gloves are off now. PJ knows it and feels it, because it touches
things we all care about. So....
T-Shirt: PJ in the little red dress, but this time with fingernails (even
approaching claws) and teeth gnashed.
Caption: Grrrrrr, don't mess with things PJ cares about!
... or something along those lines ...
She's fired up, and rightly so. To me it's an indicator for action.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ikocher on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
I can see M$ OSI proposal working pretty well, yes! Pretty well.
There are people that call this M$ move a good thing, some posters even say that
it seems a stripped down GPL license, etc... On the other side (me included)
that this is not, it is bad, evil move in M$.
Can you see it? Divide and conquer!!! Something so old and effective. The new
M$ move is simple divide the open source community in parts, those who think M$
is being good with a "noble" license, and those who see it as
something evil.
The licenses by themself are bad, no need to publish the source if only the
binary is published, something that goes directly against the heart of open
source, specially (L)GLP. Reader RTF said it pretty well some posts above.
M$ takes credit of others work, how new...
I think this is tempting, very tempting, the new "lamb" in the field.
PJ is just starting to call wolf, but there are always some geniuses that don't
want to see the "lamb's" feet: standard wolf ones.
M$ will never be lamb, by default. They have a monopoly they call bussiness to
mantain (Steve's & Bill's shares value, exactly), so pretending being a lamb
just does fit, simple! If sort of a miracle or magical change happens, then M$
will start to respect others as there first steps in being accepted. Bullies
are always bullies!
Ivan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: billyskank on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
When I first read it, I missed the point. That is because the requirement that
your derivative must have the same licence exists in the GPL too. So it did not
strike me as unreasonable. And, viewed like that, it isn't.
But, of course, the point is to ensure that the twain can never meet.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
"I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it alters its
negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and FOSS. And so should
you."
In M$, there are two big unrelated groups of people: management and
non-management.
Msofties, many of them are normal people. And also struggle - just like F/LOSS -
with their management.
PJ, pay little of your attention to e.g. http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ It is
perfect insight into what's happening really in M$ - from words of not PR but
normal employees.
As many of IT industry worked with/for M$, you cannot avoid the movement around
M$ to drag decent people out of the swamp M$ became now. And also you cannot
avoid some bystanders - like Tim O'Reilly - speaking up about making M$ more
open to IT community in general and F/LOSS in particular. Not for M$ as company
sake - but as you can imaging - for people who works their and for products they
develop for living. Many Microsofties are tired of their management and how the
management screws products they invested so much of their time into making.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hamstring on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
Microsoft uses this tactic when things look bad in other ways. Do you think
naming Microsoft proprietary formats "OOXML" was accidental? Do you
think they ever use the term "interoperability" accidentally? An OSI
based license would be used the same way.
Microsoft would brag that they are an OSI company.. meanwhile their licenses are
restrictive. PHB's would not know any differently, and which stories about
Microsoft's OSI status would they pay to get printed in the latest PC magazine;
The one about how they are FSF friendly? or how they plan to EEE anything they
can put their fingers on? My money would ride on Microsoft paying for the
former, not the latter.
This license attempt, just like so many others is to muddy the water. How can a
company who has an OSI license, and stacked enough ISO committees, er.. I mean
had enough committees vote for OOXML so that it's a “ISO Standard” be anti-FSF
and anti-Linux right? The two ploys by Microsoft kind of go hand in hand when
you think about it.
It's a play on the grand M$ scheme.. and it is a stepping stone to the next
target..
For the disbelievers and trolls: People who know Microsoft understand that they
are not suddenly having a change of heart and being nice guys. Ballmer states
it best, when he talks about Microsoft only being concerned with the stock
holders and revenue. They do not care about hardware vendors, competition, or
you and I!
---
# echo "Mjdsptpgu Svdlt" | tr [b-z] [a-y]
# IANAL and do not like Monopoly[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
Like, you know, one that's actually open? That secures freedoms for the users
and the developers. This license is restricted to Microsoft's proprietary OS so
that they can hope to perpetuate software on it and only on it. They seek to
divide the open source communities by restricting it.
SOLUTION: Don't use it. Use the GPL or even one of the more totally open
licenses that doesn't even try to perpetuate improvements back into the
community software pool. Doing either of those two things is far better than
using this MS license. Anyone with a brain will know to steer clear of this,
and this is a lesson for everyone: Know what licenses the software you use
carry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumnos on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
<spoof>
Tiananmen Square, CHINA
President Hu
Jintao announced today that the People's Republic of China has submitted a
proposal for categorization as "humane" to Amnesty International. Though
external attempts have been made to classify China's policy towards protesters
as "humane", this is the first step made by China itself.
"This is a
huge, long-awaited move," top Chinese diplomat Sha Zukang, wrote in his blog. If
the new definitions of 'Humane' are accepted by Amnesty International, he added,
"it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between human-rights violators
and the human-rights community."
Three of the five policies proposed
for approval extend the definition of "humane treatment" to exclude any
dissident that does not swear allegiance to the current regime. Sha Zukang
continued, "I believe that the same voices that have been calling for China to
better participate with human-rights organizations would voice their approval
should Amnesty International itself open up to more
nations."
Considerable skepticism has arisen since Vice President Zeng
Qinghong recently stated "Human rights have been the issue that surrounds us.
Could a totalitarian model like China compete with humane policies? And we've
worked very hard on making the value of exploitation surpass what the
human-rights community can deliver, because frankly, it's not a business model
we can embrace. It's inconsistent with national value."
A spokesperson for
Human Rights Watch did not accept China's argument, replying "We could call
these non-compatible definitions from from China and Darfur SHuRC licenses:
'Sort of Human Rights Conventions.'" He continued, "The world contains a about
250 individual nations. Of those, approximately 75-80 percent adhere to the
policies established by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The
remainder are under a variety of more oppressive regimes, but even a number of
those share the similar ideals. Again, it is not that big of a deal," he
said.
"I didn't leave China behind so I can find it again in a new
guise. I don't trust that country. I shouldn't, after all I went through living
there" said noted blogger PJ, "Words don't matter to me. They always talk
pleasantly, except for Qinghong. But actions are what matter. And China is an
human-rights country only if the earth actually is flat and the sun totally
revolves around it after all.
</spoof>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Who wants to work "with" criminals and thugs?
---
I have a semicolon and I'm not afraid to use it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kedens on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Under the law a corporation is a person. If this is really so, then Microsoft is
a mass murderer having killed many other such persons. There seem to be people
saying that we shouldn't view Microsoft any differently based on their past
actions. While I believe in giving second chances, I don't think I would have
wanted to have dinner with the Manson Family and I certainly will not treat
MansonSoft I mean, Microsoft, as if they've done nothing wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
I am with you, I cannot believe the fools who are working with Microsoft. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
Today it seems like there are a very large number of troll type posts.
Agreeing, then disagreeing with the points in the article. When I see this type
of pattern in my life I start looking closer at the arguments and their merits.
Today I see many conflicting and oddly pointed discussions that on the face seem
resonable but have no depth.
Looks like MS has noticed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
The whole idea behind these licenses, and the community that has sprung up
around them, is that we don't have to rely on trust. If the license gives us
sufficient freedom (as carefully defined by things like the FSF "four
freedoms", the OSI's OSD, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines), then we
are free. Good people can go bad, good organizations can get bought or change,
but we are guaranteed our freedom in what's gone before.
Once released, it can't be "un-released". Many have tried, none have
succeeded.
We should be wary of Microsoft, like we were wary of IBM way back when. But the
licenses should stand or fall on their own terms. If the license is truly free,
then we don't need to worry about the software licensed under it. MS can make
those subtle and devious changes, but we can unmake them, and MS can't do
anything about it. And if the case for their deviance can be made, the
community will reject the bad upstream and embrace the fork. It's happened many
times before.
In particular, the MSPL looks fine to me. If IronRuby is licensed under it, it
should pass muster as free software and open source. And if MS ends up not
being a trustworthy caretaker, then it should be forked, just as if it were IBM
or Linus or me mis-maintaining it. If the license is truly free (or "open
source"), then MS will not be able to prevent that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JJSg on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
The OSI has already stated that their current goal is to reduce the number of
Open Source licenses. Accepting two more is moving backwards.
But beyond that, M$ has not proven themselves to be responsible members of the
community. There is no reason that the OSI cannot hold them to a higher standard
than most. To start with, M$ should donate all 239 of it's patents that FOSS
supposedly infringes to the patent commons. Next, they should implement ODF
compatibility in all Office components as an equal option.
If M$ wants to join the community, it has to be on the community's terms.
Later . . . Jim
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
"But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know
it...all that will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software"
and the GPL2 of course.
Also.... good?
Open Source has always been about compromise and ESR still bangs on about
selling out to get kids with ipods hooked on Linux; Free Software, by its very
nature, can't be beaten/coopted by any outside influence other than
disinterest.
It is not Microsoft which weakens Open Source, it is Open Source which weakens
itself by being so obtusely complicated and allowing Microsoft to muddy the
waters further.
There are dozens of approved licences with only very minor differences overall.
Why in the name of all sanity have they not distilled their variance into simple
classifications of intent, like Creative Commons has done?
Doing this with memorable branding would at least force Microsoft to compete on
their terms, if at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
I suppose I should 'fess up here - I am one of the ones
who called for
Microsoft to submit these two licenses to
the OSI for approval:
Dan
Fernandez's Blog - TestDriven.NET
and Express - Technical
Information FWIW, the template Microsoft
Community License and the template Microsoft Permissive
License:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics
/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/com
munitylicense.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/pe
rmissivelicense.mspx
do fit the definition of Open Source licenses, so
IMHO,
Microsoft should submit them to the OSI and the FSF for
formal
recognition as such.
My reasoning's quite simple - Microsoft
has these
two "Shared Source" licenses, which do fulfill the Open
Source Definition
- which, I might remind you, was the
Debian Social Contract before it was
adopted by the Open
Source Initiative. By submitting them to the OSI for
recognition as compliant Open Source licenses - and note
only the template
MsCL and MsPL qualify as Open Source - we
do get leverage with
Microsoft.
The sort of leverage we get is not dissimilar to that we
got
when IBM, or Sun made up their own licenses and
submitted them. The fact that
they had recognized that
there was a community they had to work with, to fully
qualify, was a start; contributing code followed that.
(IBM used to be
totally arrogant once.) As
I suggested - and will keep on suggesting - to
Microsoft:
And that is why I suggested above, that
Microsoft take
the hitherto-unthinkable step of releasing
the Visual [PL] Express source trees
under the
aforementioned template MsCL, and allowing everybody the
chance to
be a contributor. It was the impression that
Microsoft was apparently keen to
give in the early
nineties, that everybody was welcome to join in, according
to what I remember of Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor columns
in BYTE Magazine,
and it worked then, so why not
now?
They seem to be wanting to
be seen as
buzz-word-friendly these days, and the buzzword du jour
is Open
Source, mostly because it's eating their lunch. So
there's no harm, as I see
it, in rubbing Microsoft's
nose in its own droppings. And getting OSI approval
for
two Microsoft licenses that do fit the OSI Open Source
Definition, can't
be beat.
--- finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Darigaaz on Thursday, August 02 2007 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
There is no obligation for licensees to publish any changes they
make in either binary or source code form.
That's true of BSD
too (and the GPL, for that matter - there are requirements that you publish
source if you publish at all, but no requirements that you actually
publish).
In fact, as best I can tell, the Ms-PL is nearly identical to the
BSD license. MS publishes the code and gives you free access and use, but they
don't require you to do the same. The Inquirer article you linked to misses the
point completely, I'm afraid - requiring licensees to publish source
(in other words, copyleft) isn't a requirement of the Open Source Definition.
The licensor has to offer source, and can require that
licensees do likewise - but they don't have to. If the article in the Inquirer
was correct, BSD wouldn't be an Open Source license, because it doesn't require
licensees to publish source for derivative works either.
Don't get me wrong,
I don't like MS any more than you do - and I strongly suspect that if and when
any of their licenses get approved, they're going to try to trick people into
using the ones that obviously fail (the LPL, LCL, and RL). But the PL and CL do,
as best I can tell (IANAL), meet the definition. --- Many eyes make all
bugs shallow - not just in software, but journalism and law as well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tux_sf on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
I've attended OSCON for 4 years. In that time, M$ has always been a
sponsor & that has not been a secret if you cared to read the convention
materials where they list them. However, they have never had a booth in the
small expo component of the convention, and did not this year, either (something
I always have always found odd for a sponsor). But they have become a subtly
more noticeable presence since my first OSCON. Outside of being listed as a
sponsor 4 years ago, the only sign of them that I remember was that they
provided the bag lunches during the first 2 days of sessions (they had a big
round white sticker sealing them that said something like "Courtesy of
Microsoft").
While Bill Hilf's 'keynote' was politely received, it
didn't get a rousing reception to be sure (unlike that of
Rick Falkvinge, the
founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, which was very warmly received).
The introduction before Hilf's speech was kind of funny as they clearly weren't
sure it would be a polite crowd.
It doesn't surprise me, given the
number of titles O'Reilly publishes on M$ products, that Tim O'Reilly would
encourage the idea that M$ will "play well with others." But the attempts
to do so came across as less than convincing to me, and I'm guessing to many
others as well.
Maybe it was just me, but the whole convention this
year seemed more than a little flat. Perhaps it is going the way of LinuxWorld
(grey, corporate boredom, with what "community" there is pretty well hidden). I
hope it isn't going this way, as it used to be a great experience to attend
OSCON.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
Just take a look at the demonstrations posted for Iron Python.
Notice something interesting: nearly every single one relies extensively on and
only works with Windows technologies--none of which are standards nor are
available (in full strength) on any other platforms other than Windows.
They use WPF, Windows Forms, DirectX, DirectShow, COM Interop, PowerShell,
Direct3D, etc.
<a href="http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython/Wiki/View.aspx?
title=Samples&referringTitle=Home"> Iron Python Wiki:
Demonstrations</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bojan Sudarevic on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
There is no obligation for licensees to publish any changes they
make in either binary or source code form.
This is why it's called
permissive license. Same thing as in MIT and BSD
licenses.
Licensees may also charge a licensing fee for the
modified work.
AFAIK, Free Software is a matter of liberty not
price. So, it O.K. to sell
Free Software.
Microsoft has created a limited version, the
Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for
restricting usage to the Windows platform only.
English is not my
native language, but I preety good in reading. And I hav read Ms-PL two times, and didn't find that
restriction.--- Bojan Sudarevic [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|