|
Why, Why, Why OSI? - Updated |
|
Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:23 PM EDT
|
Matt Asay writes that he can't understand why Microsoft's submission of its Microsoft Permissive License is not being welcomed by one and all with open arms at OSI. So I thought I'd try to explain it.
Here's what he wrote: I really, really don't understand this. I understand that Microsoft has a history of aggression against open source, as Chris DiBona wrote recently on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) license-discuss e-mail list. I compete with Microsoft and have for many years. I get that Microsoft has been bad.
But discrimination is explicitly against the OSI's Open Source Definition, as Bill Hilf noted in responding to criticism from Google's Chris DiBona on the e-mail thread...
I understand that Microsoft may be using the OSI's license approval process to its own ends, and potentially ends that may be anti-open source. I'm still not sure, however, that it's appropriate to treat an incoming license from Microsoft any differently than one that comes from Linus Torvalds.
First of all, please note that the OSI's Open Source Definition doesn't say one word about discrimination against entities offering licenses for approval. It requires that an approved *license* not discriminate, not OSI: 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. See? It doesn't say OSI can't discriminate. It can if it wants to, as far as the OSD is concerned. So Microsoft's representatives and defenders need to stop twisting the definition's words. So the question becomes, should OSI discriminate?
Will a farmer let a fox into the henhouse if the fox puts on a chicken suit?
I think not. Not if he wants to have any chickens. A fox in a chicken suit is still a fox and is still planning to eat his chickens. So only a stupid farmer would reason that a fox in a chicken suit, even one made from real chicken feathers, should now be allowed to reside in his chicken coop with his tasty chickens. Farmers are supposed to consider what foxes are known to do to chickens and what a fox's motives and likely purpose might be in putting on a chicken suit and sweetly pawing on the door to the henhouse.
The farmer's chickens need him to protect them, because chickens don't win battles with foxes. The fox has all the fangs in this picture. So a farmer naturally will think ahead and take steps to try to prevent such battles on his watch. The devious fox may still figure out a way to slip inside and kill some chickens, but at least the farmer wasn't the one who held open the door.
The law distinguishes between monopoly players and everybody else. Is that discrimination or is it acknowledging reality? Is there any reason for OSI to ignore reality factors, some of which Asay enumerated himself? For sure, if there is a Microsoft motive to obtain an OSI-approved license so as to use it against the community, as he posits, that would be an excellent reason not to approve it. Otherwise, the community is likely to decide OSI has become irrelevant to the community because of failure to look out for its best interests. If in fact OSI suspects that Microsoft's real purpose is to cause harm, since OSI is a California 501(c)(3), can it approve a license it believes will harm the community's interests? The By-laws seem to me to be incompatible with any action OSI knows will cause harm, or is foreseeably likely to cause harm, to the community's interests. I'm just a paralegal, so OSI probably needs to ask its lawyers about that, but as I read it, I can't see how it can ignore a threat that an OSI license might be used against the Open Source community. A number of community members have told OSI they think accepting this license would be harmful to the community's interests, after all. Can OSI ignore that? I honestly don't see how, unless they rewrite the by-laws.
Update: I just thought of another reason to think very seriously about what licenses
get approved by OSI:
11 Jan 2005: IBM today pledged open access to key innovations covered by 500 IBM software patents to individuals and groups working on open source software. IBM believes this is the largest pledge ever of patents of any kind and represents a major shift in the way IBM manages and deploys its intellectual property (IP) portfolio.
The pledge is applicable to any individual, community, or company working on or using software that meets the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open source software now or in the future.
IBM intends for this pledge to form the basis of an industry-wide "patent commons" in which patents are used to establish a platform for further innovations in areas of broad interest to information technology developers and users. So approving a Microsoft license brings all that with it. Is that your intent? It's a serious responsibility now on OSI's shoulders to make sure the patent commons stays peaceful and isn't misused. It's not just about a license. There is all that goes with being on the approved list.
|
|
Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
I feel offended by any hen house analogies. ;-)
This is the thread for factual corrections.
---
If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within
itself, then it is inconsistent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- probaly -> probably - Authored by: rc on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- coup -> coop - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- coup -> coop - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- coup -> coop - Authored by: rc on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT
- Foxes -- I Feel Your Pain - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- (not a correction) the math of the fox - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- Discrimination / Reality - no dichotomy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Oops, PJ just made an error about IBM - Authored by: rickmoen on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 05:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
Please use clickies, follow the instructions in red, and post in HTML mode.
On-topic posts may or may not be punished.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I am now hungry for chicken. :P - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- Just sent my son out for KFC. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- OT: "a California 501(c)(3)" - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- What Computer to get? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- My New Dell's On Its Way! Three-Button Mice? - Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:58 PM EDT
- "Fewer flaws FUD wars as Microsoft paints misleading picture of Linux security" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:00 PM EDT
- Linux And Other Rants: "Linux in the Workplace: What the Users Think" - Authored by: warner on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- My Standards Australia Submission - Authored by: podge on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- another webcomic noticed the sco case - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:24 AM EDT
- Another ammo for IBM ?. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 05:11 AM EDT
- Unfortunately... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- New Walmart Music Store - has anyone tried it on Linux? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- Tooooooooooys...Are Coming.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 07:43 AM EDT
- This poor kid was trying to play with his Microsoft X-Box - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- SCO's latest 8K on EDGAR - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Linus torvolds says buy intel - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Boies Jr.: Like father, like son? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Bill Gates phones U.S Government? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Interesting - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- 2007 Desktop Linux Survey results revealed - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Analogy too good - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- CAFC decision makes patent defense easier - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- WSJ: "Lawyers Gear Up Grand New Fees" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:16 PM EDT
- Groklaw in the LATimes, briefly - Authored by: jfabermit on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- The Asus EEE -- What A Difference A Day Makes.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Share and Enjoy(R)
Share and Enjoy is a registered trademark of the Marketing Division of the
Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Newspicks Discussion Here - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- HAHA yes outsource the lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- Share and Enjoy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 07:05 AM EDT
- Green Hills..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- Out-lying SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Out-lying SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Newspicks Discussion Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Newspicks Discussion Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- The spamhaus mp3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- Microsoft vs. Google Over OSI - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:28 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- you've got that all wrong... - Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- The Klingon version - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- Why, Why, Why OSI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT
- a mistaken idea... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Cherry-picking? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2007 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Here's Another Relevant Saying - Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Why, Why, Why OSI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Simple Answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- Simple Answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2007 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Simple Answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 11:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
That's one scary headline. I read it as PJ saying: Why Oh Why, OSI, are you
going to approve MS's license? Good thing the first sentence in the article was
there to calm me down ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
Did Bill Hilf really bring up the "discrimination" argument? Looking back over
the text, it seems to me that the word originated with Mark Asay.
Hilf does not
argue that "any OSD compliant license should be accepted", because he takes the
time to rebut the license proliferation argument. So I think Hilf accepts that
there are considerations beyond compliance. And I don't see anywhere in his
short post where he argues that discrimination isn't among them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Linegod on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
I'm still not sure, however, that it's appropriate to treat an
incoming license from Microsoft any differently than one that
comes from Linus
Torvalds.
Except for the fact that Linux used an existing
license, he didn't
try to create his own. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zeff on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
If Microsoft really want to show that they are going to participate in the
Open Source community why not use an existing OSI approved license?
It's
not like there aren't many to choose from!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime
Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is
peace for our time."
--Neville
Chamberlain
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat
it."
In history circles, the above has become to be known as appeasement. The
2007 appeasers may want to check the results of the 1938 appeasers actions
before making a decision.
Also, this I posted before:
OSI needs to
beware Greeks bearing gifts.
Reading another forum, it struck me
that
- The Trojans learned something the hard way that OSI may not
know yet.
- OSI accepting the MS license is a divide and conquer strategy,
love, MS. If OSI accepts, it could split FOSS into FS and OSS
permanently.
--- Free minds, Free software [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Hasn't the OSI always leaned this way -- attempting to dilute Free Software and
morph it into a corporate license? Seems that was always their goal; and
always what their actions tried to accomplish.
I think we should just let the OSI go and partner with Microsoft; and move on
without them.
Perhaps their work would be appreciated in the Windows world.
I certainly don't want them near any software or licenses I use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
I don't have any love for Microsoft, but I do think that criticizing the license
might be more productive than just criticizing its author.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Perhaps we should analyze the license - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Perhaps we should analyze the license - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Perhaps we should analyze the license - Authored by: stevem on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Perhaps we should analyze the license - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- The license is broken. - Authored by: jo_dan_zukiger on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Link to previous article - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- One Microsoft Way - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Analogy flawed.. - Authored by: Kanth on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Perhaps we should analyze the license - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
interestingly i think that the GPLv3 steps on those two same points... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
Matt Asay just doesn't get it. Microsoft has not "Capitulated." All
they did was submit some licenses.
Capitulating is what Sun did when they released Java under the GPL. Let's see
Microsoft release the source of one of their major products under a well
understood open source license. Then you can call it capitulation.
There is every reason to believe Microsoft is trying to game the OSI just like
they are trying to game ISO with OOXML.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
The OSI is there in order to certify that a license is "open source"
according to the terms accepted by the community. The suggestion I see is that
we should not allow Microsoft to call some of its software "open
source", even though the license is 100% true to the open source
definition.
The analogy with letting the fox in the hen house is false, because all OSI
certification provides is a indication that a license is true open source. It
has an important role to ensure that companies do not try to deceive us.
If we don't approve Microsoft licenses because they are Microsoft who is next?
Do we refuse to allow Novell to publish open source licenses because they made a
patent agreement with Microsoft? I have read the Microsoft license, and find it
very reasonable. We should evaluate the license on the merits, not who wrote it.
I think the idea that we must forever reject everything Microsoft does is small
minded.
Not for one minute do I suggest letting our guard down and accepting Microsoft
as a long lost child. Obviously we need to maintain responsible suspicion of
Microsoft's motives given their past. However what I feel is wrong is to abandon
our principles of freedom and try to become a closed shop; and to allow the OSI
to discriminate. Its OPEN source for god sake - nobody should have the moral
right to tell others whether they have the right to be open.
Sorry PJ, I think you are totally wrong on this one.
Regards,
Peter Harrison[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: ftcsm on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- Why we should exclude OSI - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: philc on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: stomfi on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- This is Why - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:36 PM EDT
- Sure after all, MSFT really WANTS to help Linux -- really!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:41 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:12 AM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: pallmall on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:35 AM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:14 AM EDT
- Does OSI really _have_ to accept any license that fulfils open source definition? - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:47 AM EDT
- Amen. If MS has hens to sell... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- No, you are wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- Why are you assuming that the license ... - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Why we shouldn't exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- Completely Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 06:25 AM EDT
- Why we should exclude Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2007 @ 10:52 PM EDT
|
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
The OSI approval process is delineated
here.
The process, like much
open source work, is designed to be collaborative, e.g. to work with all comers
indiscriminately. The only possible reason to reject a license would be if part
of step 8 were interpreted more broadly than it is intended:
Once
we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has
received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there
are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the
license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list
below.
"remaining issues" could, of course, be issues
outside the actual license itself, but on the other hand, all the other
text and the process itself revolves around the license, so that would be
a disingenuous interpretation.
I think it would only be principled to
approve the license, if it meets all the required criteria. I understand that
Microsoft's motives are not pure, but it may be, in this instance, that
"the end justifying the means" has led Microsoft to do something right, while
the same attitude of "the end justifying the means" seems to be leading a lot of
people here into advocating that OSI abandon its principled position.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
I think the way to combat Microsoft is not to discriminate against them. The
FOSS community should live its ideas of openness. OSI should be vendor neutral,
even the Evil Empire should be given a fair hearing. That is the point of having
a third party approval of licenses, everyone gets the same deal.
That said there are already too many "Open Source" licenses, and many
are fairly similar. The path to approval for new licenses should include a
requirement that the license serves a legitimate need. OSI has talked about
license proliferation, but I don't think OSI has moved strongly enough to combat
it, nor taken sufficient steps to require new licenses to demonstrate a real
need.
I also think OSI should move to consolidate the many already existing similar
licenses by mediating between the major projects that use them. Some people may
listen to them some people almost certainly won't.
We all also feel that deep down Microsoft is up to something but even if they
get a license approved I don't think they will attract a strong following.
Anyway there is really nothing anyone can do to keep Microsoft from publishing
and using any license they want to.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
The thing I have a problem with in both the license's (Ms-LCL and Ms-LPL) is the
fact that they will only be allowed run on Microsoft systems. That fact is
plainly stated in both of the licenses. Where you can use BSD, GPL, etc… (OSI
license’s ) for software running under Linux, BSD, Solaris or whatever operating
system you want. Not so with ether of the MS license’s. To me that doesn’t make
it an Open Source License. It breaks both the idea and the sprit of the open
source software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ms-LCL and Ms-LPL - Authored by: Stefan Wagner on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- Why, Why, Why OSI? - Authored by: Darigaaz on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- Why, Why, Why OSI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:32 AM EDT
- Why, Why, Why OSI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:44 AM EDT
|
Authored by: CraigAgain on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
Asking whether the OSI should or should not accept a license based on its
corporate source, or even on whether the license meets specific parameters, is
missing the forest for the trees.
The first question should always be, "Is there a specific licensing need in
the open source community that cannot be met through the existing
licenses?" If not, then I don't care if God wrote the thing: it should be
vetoed. Designer licenses are the antithesis of the whole standardization
process.
If there is a need, then we ask, "Does the proposed license appropriately
fill this need?" (In Microsoft's case, we never get as far as this second
question.)
Personally, my problem with the Microsoft OSI requests is that, while I can see
how these licenses might fill Microsoft's needs, I can't see them
"furthering the cause" and helping the open source community as a
whole. It's like the OOXML argument. Regardless of the quality (or lack thereof)
of its design, OOXML functions to muddy the waters and hinder the world from
adopting a truly open, interoperable, standard.
---
Don't change your dreams to fit reality. Change reality to fit your dreams.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
It seems to me, that if the license fits the definition of an Open Source
license then it is one. If it walks like a duck....
Of course that is the difference between Open Source and Free Software. The
Open Source community is (usually) more pragmatic in nature. The Free Software
community is more idealistic in nature. I don't know what the OSI bylaws are,
but way back when they were starting out, I thought it was basically to certify
which licenses met the definition of Open Source using a definition that was
essentially the one used by Debian. I thought that was Bruse Perens's
contribution.
If the license meets the definition, then it does. Period. Now, neither I nor
anyone else have to welcome it and I don't since we are getting way too many
similar licenses that aren't serving useful purposes. But I don't recall ever
hearing that it was OSI's job to cull the number of Open Source Licenses out
there. Maybe things have changed. Or maybe they need to.
Unless there is something in OSI's mandate that says they should reject licenses
that comply with the Open Source definition or if there is genuinely something
about the Microsoft license that does not meet that definition, then I think
they are stuck.
Maybe we need something like the Creative Commons that creates a small,
flexible, common set of Open Source Licenses that are tailorable to cut down on
the proliferation of Licenses. FSF only cares about the subset that are
copyleft and that is reasonable for them. Perhaps it is time that OSI or
someone else find/define the larger set that cover the needs of the Open Source
Community's needs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
"Fink also had strong words for IT executives thinking of creating a new
open-source software license. "Stop. Please don't. Call me", he said. He said
that he approves three to five open-source projects every week at HP, that the
company deals with everything from enterprise IT to cameras and printers, and he
has never had to approve a new license. "Let's stop creating new licenses", he
said." (article).
OSI needs to
stop approving so many lawyers' vanity licenses. I don't care if they're from
Microsoft or anywhere -- too many licenses is too many licenses. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
(OSI) One of our most important activities is as a standards
body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the
community. The Open Source Initiative Approved License trademark and program
creates a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and
governments can organize open-source cooperation.
OSI Web Site
Does this
sound familiar? A standards body, rather like ECMA or ISO (International
Standards Organisation)? Microsoft has decided to get involved with various
standards bodies. We've seen how they work the national ISO committees dealing
with MS-OOXML. Why would they deal with the OSI any differently?
The OSI
isn't supposed to be just a dusty office where licenses are filed away. Some of
the important words and phrases in the above quoted paragraph are "for the good
of the community", "nexus of trust", and "cooperation". These things don't just
happen on their own. It requires that the people involved have common goals and
beliefs. That's what a "community" is all about. If the OSI isn't going to have
a good look at who they're letting in the door, then they had better re-think
just what their purpose is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vruz on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
Given the following SPECIFIC PURPOSES, ARTICLE III Section 2. of the BYLAWS OF
OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE:
(1) educate the public about the
advantages of open source software
(2) encourage the software
community to participate in open source software development;
(3)
identify how software users' objectives are best served through open source
software;
(4) persuade organizations and software authors to
distribute source software freely they
otherwise would not distribute;
(5) provide resources for sharing information about open source
software and licenses;
(6) assist attorneys to craft open source
licenses;
(7) manage a certification program to allow use of one or
more certification trademarks
in association with open source software
licenses; and ...
(8) advocate for open source
principles
Please explain, how does Microsoft fit in these
Bylaws, most particularly according to points 1, 3 and 8 ?
In my
view:
Point 1: It is not in the best interest of
the open source community to have Microsoft taking part of it.
Taking
just one of the many very public examples of their anti-open source behaviour,
the CEO of Microsoft, Steven Ballmer has been on the record several times
expressing his intent to eliminate, reduce or adversely portray open source
software and its associated community.
Point 3
Independently of whatever license is presented, it is the duty of the OSI board
to weigh the possible outcomes of the decisions they take when accepting a new
member. It is not possible to present a balanced judgement in the best interest
of the open source community by merely analyzing a proposed license. Such
decisions impact developers, users and the open source ecosystem as a whole all
around the world, they shouldn't be taking lightly.
Is the open source user
best served by welcoming a convicted monopolist in the US and other countries,
with ongoing litigation taking place in Europe and elsewhere ? Is the open
source user best served by welcoming a company that has repeatedly and
prominently threatened open source with litigation ? Is the open source user
best served by welcoming a company that has demonstrably funded attacks on
certain open source projects ?
Point 8
Given Microsoft's anti-open source propaganda in the media, and by associating
OSI with Microsoft, is it safe to say the OSI is advocating for open source
principles ?
According to the wording and spirit of the Bylaws, we're not
talking about licenses here, we're talking about the principles the OSI
advocates for. Is Microsoft's advocacy and public relations output compatible
with the principles of open source ? Can a destructive and misleading campaing
of disinformation be reconciled with the "principles of open source"
?
--- --- the vruz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- To: Matt Asay - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SteveOBrien on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
If you object to a company's prices or policies, you are free to not do business
with them. Microsoft has a great business plan, and they execute it
brilliantly, not to say ruthlessly.
However, in my case, I thoroughly dislike Microsoft's policies, and I have
ordered my (fairly extensive) work and home computers such that I have no
Microsoft software, I don't want any Microsoft products of any kind, and I would
like to have one area of computing where Microsoft has no role. I haven't even
booted a Windows machine since May of 2002.
I would like to communicate to them that I don't want them anywhere near
anything that I use. It would be lovely if they would just leave us totally
alone. They pollute everything that they touch, and if they start to barge into
the open source arena, they will surely make a mess for the rest of us.
The buffoonery going on with ODF in Massachusetts and the recent circus that
they are causing with ISO process should teach us something about how they
work.
Microsoft: Keep away from me and I'll keep away from you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
For a licence to become approved by OSI, it has to meet certain requirements. If
Microsoft licences do meet those requirements, they should be approved. If they
don't, then they shouldn't.
Who submits the licence for approval and who wrote it is completely beside the
point. Yes, I'm aware Microsoft are a software monopoly and I personally steer
clear from their software, but that has absolutely _nothing_ to do with some
licence they wrote.
And how can a licence that meets OSI requirements "harm the community's
interests"? It cannot - by definition - no matter who's behind it. If it
can, then OSI should change the requirements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:53 AM EDT |
And as others have pointed out: if Microsoft really wants to cooperate with
the free software community, there are about a jillion licenses already out
there that it could choose from. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Right on, PJ - not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- Right on, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Right on, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: David Dudek on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
EXTEND: Create a 'new' "Open Source License" - Done!
EMBRACE: Get OSI Approval of the "new" license - In Work!
EX...: Working on that!
---
David Dudek[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
Scenario 1: OSI approves the two MS licenses
I would not be surprised
if MS has already prepared a huge marketing and PR campaign which will be
unleashed the moment the licenses are approved.
I would not be surprised if
this PR campaign would go right to the throat of FOSS and to the throats of key
figures in the FOSS communities. I would also not be surprised if the mysterious
200+ patents are put on the table once again. Now decorated with the claim that
one has to do "open" source the Microsoft way or not at all to avoid legal
problems.
On top of that OSI will have lost all its credibility among many
FOSS supporters, and be essentially dead as a license clearing house.
Scenario 2: OSI does not approves the licenses
I would not be
surprised if there is already a legal team at MS working to prepare a lawsuit
against OSI in case OSI doesn't approve. Such a lawsuit will of course also be
accompanied by a huge PR campaign.
Such a lawsuit would tie up OSI for years
to come and would effectively render OSI inoperative for a long time, maybe
forever. Because, could OSI survive an MS lawsuit? Could it do so without being
damaged? I don't think so.
Result
For me MS is driving a deadly
wooden stake through the heart of OSI. The only thing unclear to me is with
which type of hammer they'll make their way in. Already now parts of OSI seem to
be divided with regards to the MS application. So MS has already managed to seed
discord in OSI.
So, what can OSI do? Putting up a good fight. But only MS
can win in this game. In the end they will have taken out a FOSS organization.
Probably only the first one on a long black list they might have. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
Well, if PJ can use a misleading headline, so can I!
My first thought was,
if a proffered licence fits the standard then OSI are compelled by their stated
process to accept it. I looked through the qualifying standards and found that
most of the Microsoft 'open' licences fall at the first post. The most common
and compelling reason for rejection is that Microsoft usually insist that the
open code only be used with Windows. That contravenes term 8. License Must Not
Be Specific to a Product.
But, what if Microsoft come up with a licence
that meets all of the criteria? The good of OSI is the good in its actions and
goals. The Licence
Proliferation Project says,
A goal of the OSI was to help
expand the breadth and depth of Open Source software, and to that end the OSI
encouraged companies, projects, and individuals writing software to consider
using an Open Source license, or, if none seemed suitable but the idea of Open
Source was, to submit a new license that satisfied the OSD while solving
whatever problem made the existing licenses inappropriate.
I am a
little concerned that it is given in the past tense, but it is a clear statement
of OSI goals and I am confident it is still the primary goal.
So, if anyone
proffers a new licence, OSI can ask why it is necessary and reject it if the
stated need does not meet the above goals of the group. I can also see that PJ's
objections based on past and present Microsoft behaviour are more than
sufficient grounds for rejection because the effect of accepting a Microsoft
licence would, if Microsoft behaviour had not already changed, fail to meet the
goals of OSI licence acceptance.
Long may OSI be able to say 'there ain't
nobody here, but us chickens'. --- Regards
Ian Al [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 06:28 AM EDT |
The MS-PL absolutely does discriminate against authors who don't hold large
patent portfolios. Clause 3B allows patent holders to withdraw use of their IP
(grant of use of patent) from use in the case of patent litigation, but denies
the rights of non-patent holders (small or medium companies) to withdraw their
IP (grant of use of copyrights) in case of non-patent holders. The MS-PL license
therefore discriminates against non-patent holders.
Also look carefully at
the patent clause 3B. You can't prevent Microsoft from distributing your code
free, using your patents free (which you have to grant according to MS-PL) and
at the same time sueing your customers or collecting patent royalties from your
customers for Microsoft's patents. Remember you can only revoke your patents if
Microsoft sues YOU. You can't do anything if Microsoft sues, threatens or
extorts from your customers since they are not contributors. The patent clause
in MS-PL is a true parasitic patent license term, much worst than not having a
patent clause at all - you give up your patent and copy rights but allow others
to levy patent charges on your code.
Look carefully also at the clause 3D
and the words "software" and "use" on the first line. It looks like this clause
has been sneakily and ambigously worded so that it can be interpreted as stating
that once the contributor releases code under the MS-PL license, he/she can no
longer license it under another license, whether open source or proprietary.
Therefore the copyright holder loses the rights to the contributed code. This
can be viewed as discriminatory, and an infringement on the freedoms of
copyright holders who wish to distribute under multi-licenses of their
choice.
It is clear that MS-PL the MS-PL license is drafted as a vehicle
that requires contributors to give up copyright and patent rights to their own
work while allowing Microsoft to exploit and leverage the copyrighted code and
patents of contributors for free, by allowing Microsoft to charge a Microsoft
patent tax on the contributor's work from the contributor's customers for
various patented Microsoft "standards" like OOXML, the PDF replacement, .NET,
Silverlight etc. on which Microsoft is planning to secure it future revenue
stream.
How on earth is Microsoft to find any developer be stupid enough to
release under such a developer-unfriendly license? The answer to that is OSI
approval. If Microsoft can pay, bribe, or threaten to get this license certified
by OSI as open, then they can put this license as a condition for use of their
patented standards, and tell EU and other anti-trust authorities that the
license conditions for use of their patented standards is not discriminatory -
it can't be OSI has certified MS-PL as open and free - the same argument
Microsoft will use for promoting OOXML if it is approved by ISO.
The MS-PL license in it's full
gory
===================================================
Microsoft
Permissive License (Ms-PL)
Published: October 12, 2006
This license
governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept
this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the
software.
1. Definitions
The terms “reproduce,” “reproduction,”
“derivative works,” and “distribution” have the same meaning here as under U.S.
copyright law.
A “contribution” is the original software, or any
additions or changes to the software.
A “contributor” is any person that
distributes its contribution under this license.
“Licensed patents” are a
contributor’s patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant
of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license,
including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to
reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and
distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B)
Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license
conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a
non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to
make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of
its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in
the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark
License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors’ name,
logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor
over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license
from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you
distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent,
trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(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.
(E) The software is licensed “as-is.” You bear the risk of using
it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You
may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license
cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors
exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose and non-infringement.
======================================
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cool, so I can't revoke my grant of copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- One way filter - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 07:50 AM EDT
- The discriminatory nature of MS-PL - Authored by: MathFox on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- PJ, please feature the parent post on the top level - Authored by: RTH on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Now, isn't that clever? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- The discriminatory nature of MS-PL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- The discriminatory nature of MS-PL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2007 @ 12:39 AM EDT
- At least 4 ways in which MS-PL breaches OSI rules. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
You'll never convince anyone to be reasonable about open source because these
people are paid to state *positions* not their own points of view. Just give up
on being reasonable with these pro-Microsoft religious zealots.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
"I understand that Microsoft may be using the OSI's license approval
process to its own ends, and potentially ends that may be anti-open source. I'm
still not sure, however, that it's appropriate to treat an incoming license from
Microsoft any differently than one that comes from Linus Torvalds."
So many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.
But I will just say Linus isn't consumed with power and greed and manipulating
governments.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
So, PJ and her followers on this argument do not trust the OSI? Because that's
the issue. If a license meets the standards set by OSI, then it should be
accepted. To be fearful of Microsoft's License being approved by the OSI is
indicative of not trusting OSI. The question I pose then is: what reason do you
have to not trust the OSI? What events in the past cause this concern as they
are the only party that really has any power here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wri/402380040.html
Imagine that, paid to write hundreds of "stories" (under multiple user
names). Who would have guessed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Creating "buzz" - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- $1000/month - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- $1000/month - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 03:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: luvr on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
A certain nt007 made a very good point in a Talkback Comment:
"My guess
is that you would not allow your daughter to go out on a first date with a
convicted rapist even though you would have no idea about his motive toward your
daughter."
If he cannot understand that, then I
guess we can only assume that the doesn't have a daughter. Still, even
then, and assuming he's human, he really should be able to understand it,
shouldn't he? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
It's transparently obvious what Microsoft aims to achieve. They'll create
confusion by getting the most permissive of their licenses OSI approved, tout
themselves as an open source player, then when it comes to actually releasing
software, they'll do so under one of the obviously non-free licenses. Of course,
OSI and FSF will try to draw a sharp distinction between the licenses that are
and aren't acceptable, but Microsoft will label them all "shared
source" and do its very best to not distinguish. The end result will be
that it appears to the unwary manager that OSI has approved Microsoft's dubious
shared-source scheme, and they've successfully muddied the waters of open-source
just enough so that laymen will be confused into accepting their cheap
imitation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
I saw the fox in the hen house, dressed up like a chicken
I saw the sickening lock-in it had on its mind
I read on Groklaw
That It came from Redmond with plans to enslave and to bind
My, my, my OSI
Why, why why OSI
I could see, that licence was no good for me
Who needs a EULA* when you've got GPL V 3?
* EULA. Root of the word EULAGY, something spoken when a freedom has died.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
At the end of the day, no matter the twisting of words, can an individual or
group claim to stand for freedom or openness without welcoming all?
If MS' permissive license doesn't meet the criteria, don't pass it. Don't shun
it solely because it is from Microsoft. That's called hypocrisy.
Scott[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
I think it should be a matter of 'Do the licence terms meet the OSD, and is the
licence differentiated enough to deserve acceptance given the current OSI
efforts regarding non-proliferation of licenses.'.
There's a mail in the thread that succinctly states one of the reasons why:
"My only point is that if we don't keep the approval discussion to the
license itself, then we are going to have bigger issues than this. The
basic issue is: If we hold attacks against the GPL by Microsoft against
them in these procedings then it becomes reasonable to hold attacks
against *any other* OSI-approved license by any other submitting
organization. Do we want to open this door even a little?"
It's also a fair-dealing issue, in my mind.
We have at least two possible conditions:
a) The OSD is written such that licences that meet the definition cannot
possibly have subversive effects towards the ends that the OSD is there to
promote, or
b) not A.
if the case is Not A, then there's an issue in the OSD. If that's the case, then
the OSD should be fixed, rather than discriminating against license submitters
based on non-OSD criteria.
Note that I am not saying that the OSD is broken, I'm just saying that, if it
is, then that should be fixed, rather than causing all sorts of other issues by
rejecting based on non-OSD criteria
And, of course, there may be other cases besides A and Not A - yell 'em out if
you think of any - I don't want to get stuck in a false dichotomy here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JJSg on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
An Open Source license is much more than a simple contract. It says a great deal
about the organization backing it. When the GPL, Apache, Mozilla, MIT, or BSD
licenses are applied to software, there is an understanding of the intentions of
the developers because the organizations backing those licenses have an
honorable history of dealing with other developers and end users.
The same
cannot be said of Microsoft. Take a good hard look at each item in this partial
list of Microsoft's past and current actions:
- Entered into
contracts with small companies and then stole their technology forcing them to
sue MS in expensive court cases--this has happened multiple times
- Has been found guilty of abusive monopolistic practices in the US and the EU
- Prevents alternative OSes from being pre-installed by threatening
manufacturers in various ways
- Uses non-standard features with
standard protocols, making compliant products appear to be broken
- Refuses to implement the OSI approved standard, ODF, and has instead pushed
a different specification that is riddled with proprietary requirements using
methods that are the antithesis of developing international standards
- Patent threats ...
- Ernie Ball ...
These are not
merely aggressive business practices. They are repeated dishonest, even illegal,
actions. To engage MS we have to trust them to honor their commitments, and that
is not possible in light of their past and current actions.
If the
OSI approves any MS license, the message is that the Open Source community
approves of this kind of behavior. And if that happens, then the OSI is most
definitely mis-representing the FOSS community.
Later . . . Jim
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
Is there any reason for OSI to ignore reality
factors, some of which Asay enumerated himself?
Fair question.
Yes, there is.
OSI operates a certification mark program (for the "OSI
Certified" mark) within the confines of trademark law. If it wishes to retain
title to that mark, which is regulated by the Lanham act and sundry bits of
administrative law -- which it certainly does wish, by the way -- it needs to
conduct the certification program in accordances with its stated criteria, and
not use it as a software industry cudgel.
A great many people misread the
OSI approved licences list as a set of good-practices endorsements. That's an
error. It's nothing of the kind. There are quite a number of really bad, or
insignificant/redundant, or just downright silly licences that are on that list
because the OSI Board (advised by members of the license-discuss mailing list)
judged them at one point to comply with the terms of the OSD, as it existed in
that day. (E.g., some licences on that list violate OSD#10, technological
neutrality, because they were approved before OSI realised the need for adding
OSD#10.) They were approved not because of being good licences -- they weren't
-- but rather simply because they complied with the Open Source
Definition.
Over time, it will probably become obvious that MS-PL and MS-CL
are merely yet more additions to the horde of insignificant/redundant licences
that, nonetheless, do pass OSD muster. They aren't innovative or
particularly useful, though they do have the minor excellence of brevity. It
will also probably become obvious that Socialtext's CPAL, to name another recent
example, is just plain bad -- but likewise passes OSD muster. (I call it bad
because it trivially impairs usage, while simultaneously utterly failing in its
probable goal of being a copyleft licence within the ASP industry. It manages
to be a simple permissive licence within that deployment model, with a minor
annoying advertising clause, which plainly was not the drafters'
intention.)
If in fact OSI suspects that Microsoft's real purpose
is to cause harm....
...then, expose their harmdoing to public
awareness, and employ the remedy that free / open source software always uses,
of saying "No thanks; given those conditions of use, we'll either do without
your code, or write or commission replacements under terms more to our
liking.
There's really nothing new, here. However, if OSI were to surrender
the integrity of its certification program, that would be something
new, and particularly bad. Which is easily a sufficient reason for that not to
occur.
By the way, I've sent you, and MathFox, and the other site admins
five polite, periodic reminders over the last month that your domain
registration for groklaw.net is rapidly approaching the need for renewal. If
you for some reason don't want to send me the requested "Yes, we know"
acknowledgement via return e-mail, perhaps you wouldn't mind doing it here?
Thanks, and thank you for the awesome achievement that is
Groklaw.
(P.S.: October 3, by the way. As the saying goes, dates in
calendar are closer than they appear.)
Best Regards,
Rick
Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
(speaking only for himself; not an OSI
spokesman, just a grunt longtime participant on license-discuss) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
While i'm not familiar with Matt Asay, since I shuffled CNET into oblivion years
ago, given his background, I wonder what the cause for his disingenuous plea
is. It reminds me of the parable of the snake and the rat, which in this case
becomes a penguin:
A penguin that needed to escape the flooding marsh where
he lived. (forget
that penguins don't live in marshes or alongside rats).
Standing on the soggy
bank of the rising river, he was offered a ride on the
back of a snake who
swam by and said he'd ferry the penguin to the other side
so he could escape
to higher ground. Initially, the penguin refused, claiming
that the snake
would likely bite the penguin halfway across and eat him. The
snake
promised that he simply couldn't take advantage of such a situation given
the
circumstances and that the penguin would be safe with him. The penguin
climbed aboard the snake's back, and off they went.
Halfway across the
river, the snake turned around and sank his fangs into the
penguin. As he lay
dying on the back of the snake, the penguin asked the
snake why he had done
it.
"Because I'm a snake," the snake replied. "It's what I do." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sean DALY on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
>> ...businesses choose not to use GPL licensed software because
>> it is too difficult for them to accept the terms and still
>> remain competitive in the marketplace, at least with their
>> current business models.
This may be true for companies in the software business, but it's not at all
true for all other companies. I work for a Fortune 500 company which, despite
initial internal opposition to non-Microsoft software, has embraced GPL
application software. It is true that I didn't talk about the four freedoms when
championing the first GPL project; I talked about how the budget was manageable,
how the timeframe for deployment was manageable, and how the risks were reduced
-- in other words, what I have always talked about when preparing a major IT
project. That said, I spent a lot of time explaining the FOSS model to my
company's legal department, until the day they accepted to replace the
corporation's boilerplate copyright ownership clause on subcontracted
development to a clause renouncing any such claim and thus compatible with the
GPL. Five GPL projects later, my company's financial people have understood the
clear benefits of FOSS and don't have any concern that competitors in our
industry might benefit from the ongoing indirect contributions we are making
through our integrators.
Sean DALY.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
My impression of the wording in the MS-PL license is that the language is odd
for a license. It is too simple, too informal, and too imprecise.
When someone hires an expensive lawyer and they produce a legal document in
simple informal English, then beware. It usually means they are trying to use
the ambiguity of informal English to obscure something in the text.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
OSI lost all credibility when they approved the CPAL. As far as I'm concerned,
they are no longer the standard-bearer for anything, nor does their
certification mean anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
The Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) doesn't meet the Open
Source Initiative (OSI) Open Source
Definition.
OSD says:
"...2. Source Code
The program must include
source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled
form. ..."
Ms-PL says:
"... (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."
Did you notice that
distribution of source is optional under Ms-PL? Since OSI's OSD *requires* that
source code be included, Ms-PL is not OSD compliant. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, August 22 2007 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
I think Matt Asay provides the best example of an answer to his own question
of why Microsoft's license isn't being welcomed with open arms. He and Hilf
begin by claiming the OSD says something it plainly doesn't, and then proceed to
try and convince everyone else to play by their statement rather than by the
OSD's. And this is at the very start, when one would presume Microsoft would be
on it's best behavior and trying to convince people it's really being honest
this time. Yet that best behavior starts by twisting someone else's words. If
that's how they start, are they going to get any better with time? And if that's
how they start, are we really unjustified in worrying that they're also going to
take a similar approach in the license itself and in how they interpret it in
the future? The best way to judge someone is by their actions: they'll likely do
in the future as they have done in the past. Yes, people can change, but
generally they have to prove it by changing and acting accordingly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Thursday, August 23 2007 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Because, face it, at one stage neither of those other
two companies had a
reputation for being nice to
competitors.
And both of them have had
vanity licenses
approved by the OSI.
Speaking seriously, if the
Microsoft
Permissive License does fit the Open Source Definition,
then Microsoft
is free to submit them to the OSI, and the
OSI is free to accept
them.
What Microsoft is NOT FREE to do is to pretend
that the
requirements of the Open Source Definition
are irrelevant,
once the licenses have been accepted.
For example, Microsoft is NOT
FREE to claim this
travesty as "Open Source" or in any way approved by the
OSI, because it
contains terms of licensing that directly
oppose several central tenets of the
Open Source Definition.
To wit:
You
may
not:
Use the software or information derived from the software
for any
project related to, or to make any derivative works
of the software for use
with, a non-Windows Embedded CE
Platform or related to a piece of hardware
based on a
non-Windows Embedded CE Platform.
since that flies
directly in the face of the following
aspects of the Open
Source Definition:
8.
License Must Not Be Specific to a
Product
The rights attached to the
program must not depend on the
program's being part of a particular software
distribution.
If the program is extracted from that distribution and used
or
distributed within the terms of the program's license,
all parties to whom the
program is redistributed should
have the same rights as those that are granted
in
conjunction with the original software
distribution.
and
10. License Must Be
Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on
any
individual technology or style of interface.
Though, I
must confess, Microsoft has cleaned it up a
bit since I complained to Sam Ramji
about its horrific
complexity - at one stage it was discriminating against
hobbyists, saying that they had the right to the source
code, but couldn't do
anything serious with it without
paying for it - I had suggested a dual
licensing policy for
MS WinCE, where the license would be the template
Microsoft
Community License, and where businesses could, if so they
chose, buy
out the rights for their version a la AT&T and
IBM, or AT&T and Sun,
but apparently Microsoft hasn't seen
the light yet.
They'll eventually
get there. ;) It may take Microsoft
going through an 90s-IBM
red-ink-haemorrhaging near-death
experience to shake them, though, and I
suspect that is
exactly what will happen! ;) --- 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: hardmath on Thursday, August 23 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
There are three portions of the Microsoft Permissive License which hinge on
patent rights, and I have to say I find a degree of discomfort with them. I'm
focusing on the Permissive License rather than the Community License, but I
think my comments apply equally or even more strongly to the latter (because of
its file-by-file reciprocity).
First off is the Definitions section which says this:
“Licensed patents” are a contributor’s patent claims that read directly on its
contribution.
I'm not sure what "read directly on" means here, but for the sake of
expediency I'm going to assume it has the sense of "bear directly on"
or "relates directly to," such that the contribution could not
properly have been made without the rights to the associated patent. Already I
feel the need to point out the possible situation in which a contributor has
been authorized by a separate party who holds the patent to incorporate the
claimed method into a software program.
Secondly, we have the Grant of Rights section, which addresses first copyright
and then patent claims:
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license
conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a
non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to
make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of
its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the
software.
This sentence is verbose, but likely I understand it best of the portions we
look at here. Fundamentally I object to the notion that software per se can
imbody a patentable claim, so I for one would never use this license simply for
the aesthetic and precautionary reason that I don't wish to lend credence to
this corporate/bureaucratic absurdity.
However note that the statement here speaks of licensed patents. Were it not
for the "definition" made previously we would be inclined to read the
phrase "licenses patents" as meaning patents licensed to a developer
that enabled the existing contribution. But recall that the
"definition" limits the meaning of the phrase to patents owned by a
contributor and which are specifically related to the contribution (the latter
being a slightly fuzzy notion for me personally).
Apart from a mention concerning preservation of notices in redistribution, the
third and final clause that references patents is this in the Conditions and
Limitations section:
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you
claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor
to the software ends automatically.
The thing I noticed in this passage is its selective quality. It's not the
"all for one and one for all" philosophy that is espoused in typical
patent pledge defenses, but a "divide and conquer" attitude as I read
it. Hypothetically MS would be able to pick off contributors to an MS-PL'd
package one at a time, therefore facing the best odds (for a monopoly).
regards, hardmath
---
"It's a Unix license... it's a Linux license... a Unix license... a Linux
license" Chinatown IV: The Two SCO's[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SteveOBrien on Friday, August 24 2007 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
An interesting article related to this issue on eWeek: Microsoft's Open
Source Trashware"
From the article:
"I recently took a look at
Microsoft's most active open-source projects and—there's no polite way to say
this—they are all junk. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|