|
Title: OSI email group gets catty over Microsoft's Permissive License request Post by: Tanya on August 19, 2007, 11:54:21 AM OSI email group gets catty over Microsoft's Permissive License request
The OSI License-Discuss mailing list has been ablaze for the past few days since Microsoft submitted its Permissive License (MS-PL) to the OSI [Open Source Initiative] for official open source license approval. Jon Rosenberg, source program director for Microsoft, posted, "Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms combined with intellectual property protection." Rosenberg compared the MS-PL to the new BSD license and the Apache 2.0 license. "However, the new BSD license does not contain an explicit patent grant," he wrote. "In addition, we sought to create a license that is simple, short, and easy to understand." Code licensed under the MS-PL cannot be redistributed under the terms of any other license, but it can be combined with works released under the terms of other licenses, as long as those other licenses permit it. Chuck Swiger, an active member of the license-discuss community, thinks that lets the GPL out of the mix. "...The MS-PL + BSD/MIT/Zlib/Apache2 coe is fine, but MS-PL+GPL or similar is not." Still, Swiger agreed that the MS-PL was "reasonably close" to the new BSD license, which he called a "canonical example of a permissive license." Another community member, Donovan Hawkins, doesn't like the MS-PL's requirement to keep its code separate from any other code licensed differently. "I can think of cases where I made MAJOR changes to some open-source function to use in a project," he writes. "What sort of Frankenlicense would apply to that function if I wished to release my changes under GPL but the original was MPL or MSPL? Every other line of code under a different license?" Things got really interesting when Chris DiBona, longtime OSI member, open source advocate, and open source programs manager for Google, Inc. chimed in: I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe even a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that Microsoft will: a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Sourceb) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osdlicenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature ofopen source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemesto deter the use of open source software?If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts? That of a company who has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend a communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness? Continue At Source Continue to this article at Bink.nu http://bink.nu/Article10837.bink |