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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 | # ]



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 Really - Authored by: Stefan Wagner on Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 08:47 AM EDT

- Authored by: Cyberdog on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 02:13 PM 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

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 | # ]



License Profileration - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Tuesday, July 31 2007 @ 01:50 AM EDT

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