OSNews

I hope they do, but to me there's a difference between developing an open source license and then licensing software underneath it.

They've already licensed core parts of Silverlight and many other projects with their (now) open source licenses.

This was not just for show. For example mono project was able to make a port (Moonlight) in a short time, and now it will be supported by Microsoft when mature enough (some parts like VC1 codec are problem).

This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated.

Edited 2007-10-16 21:08

The VC1 codec is supported already via ffmpeg project - given Novells licencing with Microsoft, it should mean that Moonlight will support VC1 (along with Theora/ogg) out of the box.

Microsoft has also said they would provide a codec package on MS Downloads for Moonlight users.

The VC1 codec is supported already via ffmpeg project - given Novells licencing with Microsoft, it should mean that Moonlight will support VC1 (along with Theora/ogg) out of the box.

I do not see the need at all to 'license' something from someone to read a particular format. Yes that means some reverse engineering, but that has never been explicitly illegal and has never required any sort of deal in the past.

But of course, Moonlight's existence, should Silverlight gain some critical mass, is entirely in the hands of these closed additional formats.

This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated

Exactly.

Please don't take me the wrong way. I agree with your statements. I'd just like to see more from Microsoft being licensed under these before I truly believe in their open source change of heart.

This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated.

Alas, Microsoft has not given the same consideration in return to things like ODF, where arguments against it have boiled down to personal attacks and IBM conspiracies.

Give that the OSI is a loosely knit body of interested parties, I fail to see why anyone would think that someone could just wander in and get a license approved regardless of their track record.

No license leads to software built with either good or bad quality: it only sets out the license for its use. The best software could be completely closed-source or open-source and completely free to outside review, and the worst software can also have exactly the same licensing: it isn't the license that determines the quality of the software, but rather the experience, knowledge and dedication of the developers and whomever manages the project and sets the goals.

I think this is very true. Some of the worst software I've seen has come under an open source license. There are plenty of open source software examples which have horrible user interfaces, disjointed workflow and barely usable functionality. The same can be said for commercial software as well.

I don't think the license determines the quality of the software in any significant way.

unanimous means everyone, absolutely everyone, agreed.

Overwhelming means a good majority agreed.

Ignoring your childish jabs ("MICROS~1") for a moment...

Why MS-RL and not GPL? Probably because they disagree with Mr Stallman's goals, and want a code-for-code license, similar to Linus Torvalds. For example, one problematic issue could be Tivoization. The MS-RL also defines some details a bit different (I guess the NIH syndrome exists for lawyers too...)

Why MS-PL and not BSDL? The MS-PL includes a patent license, something I missed in the BSDL right the first time I read the MS-PL, since the BSDL leaves the patent situation unclear. This makes me think if the MS-PL would be a better choice for developers who would otherwise choose the BSDL (or the MITL etc). And I guess the NIH syndrome kicks in here too.

> And why is MICROS~1 attracted by the open-source philosophy and
> at the same time sues RedHat for patent infringement?

MS sued them too? Sources?

> This is a contradiction: either you want to share your stuff, and share
> your software, and throw away your patents, or you stay a closed-
> source company and leave your code closed and patent more and
> more stuff such as mouse-clicking.

Really, this kind of black-or-white thinking isn't even funny anymore.

And why need Micros^$ proprietary OSI approved license and not GPL3 or QPL or Apache License or Mozilla Public License or any other license from long list http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ???

How the hell is a license proprietary? Have you read over Ms-Pl / Ms-Rl? Have you noted differences between the BSD/Apache licenses?

I'm guessing no to both counts.

Microsoft does not agree with GPL, it's absurd to expect them to collaborate in any sort of meaningful way with the license.

Then again, the GPL is hardly the defacto Open Source license. It's the "my way or the highway", "your open source is not open enough" mentality that fuels my dislike for the GPL.

Not that I don't believe it shouldn't be there though, the GPL like all licenses has it's uses and when licensing a product you need to look at the circumstances under which it will be used.

Let's look passed the politics and get back to the code.

> I agree with you childish jabs do not go far enough

Childish jabs are one big sign of despair if you can't back them up.

> I loved your example which actually made no sense in
> reference to his question "Why MS-RL and not GPL?
> Probably because they disagree with Mr Stallman's
> goals, and want a code-for-code license, similar to
> Linus Torvalds." Linus chose the FSF License...he
> chose GPL, and *disagrees* with the goals(sic) of
> the FSF.

Linus doesn't have the resources to pull out a water-tight license on his own. Nor does he have to worry to appear as a supporter of the FSF, because he doesn't care what "Joe Developer" thinks of him. This is different for MS.

> I also loved your nitpick at Microscum(giggle like
> schoolgirl) suing redhat, when they are publicly
> threating them directly, and attacking them
> allegedly (sic) indirectly, and I believe it is
> quite big news.

My "nitpicking" was nothing else than that MS did not sue Redhat, which you claimed they did. Being sued by MS or not doesn't seem to be a minor issue from my POV.

> I believe the thinking that open-source+mixed with
> closed source doesn't work is valid. The idea that
> Microsoft is well not open-sourcing...say office is
> a valid point. If Microsoft is promoting a license
> why not use it for their stuff.

You still fail to explain why MS can't open-source some but not all of their products.

> In reality though mixing closed and Open-source is
> often problematic, look at flash on GNU, Binary
> blobs in the kernel...or the recent failure of
> company to successfully move their vector drawing
> package to open source.

That's mixing OSS and proprietary *in the same product* which is a completely different issue. You don't seem to distinguish clear between the two.

I think calling the MS nicknames childish is childish. These nicknames exist for a reason, with a meaning.



You don't happen to work in management, or do you

"Microsoft shouldn't be trusted. OSI enters a mine field here."

You know, as opposed to all the "trustworthy" (IBM, Apple, Sun etc) companies whose license they approved.

Exactly.
I can trust Sun, which has contributes to free software more than any other company, often under the GPL or their own license, and IBM fine. They are service oriented and genuinely benefit from open source and rfee software.
I'd be more cautious with Apple, but Microsoft should not be trusted. They will stab in the back, as soon as they can.

"than any other company" is certainly questionable and if you think their intentions are anything but self-interest you're somewhat gullible.



If you think you can trust IBM, the company that created the very concept of FUD, I have a bridge to sell. I guess it's good for IBM that no-one seems to remember the 80's.



Wow. How unique for a big multinational company. What dimension do you people live in that you think you can trust some huge companies (with a shady past) while others (with a shady past) are to be scorned.
MS is not to be trusted but neither is anyone else. It's not like IBM would sustain financial loss to keep Linux alive.

Also, none of this has ANYTHING do with with if the MS license should have been approved or not.

It's precisely self-interest that make IBM and Sun contribute to open source.
Msft's self interest goes against open source, therefore their license is trapped somewhere; therefore they shouldn't be trusted by the OSI

It's not who you can trust, because trust is not something a mortal should feel towards a company by default. It's more about the market behavior and history combined with the current steps they make that can lead to a feeling of trust/distrust towards the intentions of a particular company. A serial killer might express its love for humanity, although it might have a certain different interpretation of the word's meaning.

Talking about trust... maybe there is not such a difference between OSI and MS as it is between OSI and FSF. For MS OSI sure is an entry into new era of fooling people. And a nice chance for Linus to get a license he deserves.

"These licenses will merely allow Microsofties, who previously worked in isolation, greater collaboration. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but it's not good for Linux, it's not good for the Free Software movement and it does not help Open Source businesses which do not directly depend on Microsoft products."

None of those issues are relevant. If OSI had rejected these licenses for reasons such as you provide, they would've been regarded as nothing more than shills for anti-Microsoft peanut gallery, and rightly so.

So, if they would've rejected, it would be right to call them anti-MS shills. Meaning they accept = they are not, or what. If you don't trust the body to be objective enough, it's your right to feel so, but this is stupid.

None of those issues are relevant.
How not? I am trying to warn Open Source fans against believing Microsoft to be somehow good now because its licenses have been approved. All I am saying is: nothing has changed. OSI did not and should not have rejected the licenses, but being OSI-approved does not validate anything Microsoft does.

None of those issues are relevant. If OSI had rejected these licenses for reasons such as you provide, they would've been regarded as nothing more than shills for anti-Microsoft peanut gallery, and rightly so.

Where did I say I thought OSI should have rejected the licenses?

OSI must act in accordance with the rules it sets for itself and therefore must accept a license which meets those rules such as these from Microsoft. However: all of the above, let the open source community beware, do not assume that this means MS is any more pro-Open-Source than they were five or ten years ago.

Edited 2007-10-16 23:41

I believe the free software community has a sentiment against this event. Is it really what OSI planned and wanted? What about the open software guys who feel betrayed about this? Is it a wrong choice of parameters or what? Look at Theo de Radt or Linus for example how they made their choice of licenses and are only whining against it since.

This will sadly widen the divide between FSF and OSI but I hope make clearer who is who and who should take the highway

Really? The only ones I hear complaining are the hanger-ons. I haven't heard a single OSS developer of any stature that has had a problem with it.



What about the ones who would feel betrayed if it hadn't been approved?
There's always someone who's going to be unhappy with a decision.



Whining against what? I've never heard Theo whining about choosing the BSD license or Linus being unhappy with choosing the GPL. He may not be interested in v3 but he seems to be pretty at peace with picking v2.

It looks like you do not understand the goals of OSI and FSF and sentiments of their supporters. Just visit their sites someday.

And about Theo and Linus: I'm not arguing about their whining but trying to show into what denial people can fall after making an unfortunate public decision

Few, if any, commercial companies do. Come on, stop pretending that IBM or Sun or Google etc is any better or more interested in "the spirit of OSS" than MS. Wake up and smell the coffee, they're all in it for the money.

Why was parent voted down? Seems a perfectly reasonable comment, to me.

Few, if any, commercial companies do. Come on, stop pretending that IBM or Sun or Google etc is any better or more interested in "the spirit of OSS" than MS. Wake up and smell the coffee, they're all in it for the money.

Quite frankly, very few of the licenses OSI has approved should have been - especially those by people like Computer Associates. However, companies like IBM, Sun and even Apple have at least some track record of contributing to existing open source projects and a track record of interaction.

Microsoft doesn't, and quite frankly, has been nothing but derogatory and a massive hindrance to the open source movement at every turn. Considering that the OSI's logo will be used by Microsoft for credibility that it does not deserve, I would find that a huge concern.

"
I doubt that Microsoft will soon be telling us that they are into Free Software, let alone that the FSF would bless any license of theirs as Free Software. "

On the contrary, I see no reason why FSF wouldn't consider these licenses as Free software licenses too. They seem to fit the definition of what Free software is quite well to me.

The FSF is more politically driven. RMS speaks his mind. He would say no, and that would be the end of the matter.

The OSI is a certification process, not what side of the bed a guy gets up on in the morning.

/sarc

"""

"""

While I agree that a word from the Monarch of the FSF would would settle the matter. I do wonder what that word would be.

Richard is more reasonable, level headed, and strategy minded than many of his more vocal followers.

I would be interested in seeing these licenses submitted to the FSF.

>While I agree that a word from the Monarch of the FSF would would settle the matter. I do wonder what that word would be.

Richard is more reasonable, level headed, and strategy minded than many of his more vocal followers.

i'm confident that the FSF would call the license a Free Software license if it meets the Free Software definition.

Neither RMS nor the FSF's are against MS or any other company they only for Free Software and if something is Free Software they have no problem calling it Free Software.

Look at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html

and at the first comment of FSF Europe to the MS licenses: http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120....

>I would be interested in seeing these licenses submitted to the FSF.

Than just do it. The FSF doesn't has such a formal way of approving licenses like the OSI. Just send a mail to icensing(at)fsf.org and you will get an answer.

The problem isn't with MS license but that there are clueless managers.



Who cares? It's irrelevant for the license.
OSI != FSF.



I guess we can expect you to advocate the revocation of the other approved company licenses, right? You know, Sun's CCDL, Apple's APSL, IBM's Public License and the licenses from Nokia, Sybase, Vovida, CA etc.

I doubt losing OSI at this stage would be such a large blow to FLOSS as the term open source software has served it's purpose, i.e. the large scale adoption of free software in the commercial and public sectors.

It remains to be seen if MS can actually take what has been offered and run with it. FLOSS is about so much more than just the code being open, It's about building and nurturing community as well, something MS is going to have to get good at fast for them to truly reap all the benefits of the FLOSS model.

Then again, it remains to be seen if MS are even interested in a true FLOSS development model and not just paying lip service in order to capitulate on some unfortunates naive believe that one necessarily follows the other.

Microsoft already has projects on SourceForge.

Microsoft and others in the MS "community" have lots of open source projects at CodePlex too.
http://www.codeplex.com/

The DLR was "open sourced" (I can now use that term *formally* ) this summer. IronPython is open source. IronRuby is open source and Microsoft even moved it from a Microsoft site (I think it was either at CodePlex or GetDotNet) to RubyForge. IronRuby is only in alpha-type stage, but non-Microsoft people have already fixed bugs and implemented "not yet implemented" functionality, and Microsoft accepted the corresponding code to IronRuby's source tree.

Microsoft is funding an ODF/OOXML converter that is open source (hosted on SourceForge). And there is plenty of open source code at http://www.openxmldeveloper.org.

In fact, I'd guess that Microsoft has released more "open source" code than most companies, and more significant code than most. And it is nurturing a community. The most vehemently anti-Microsoft folk will turn a blind eye to Microsoft's efforts, but that's their loss.

No, I don't expect Windows or Office to be open sourced nor do I expect Microsoft to have anything to do with GPL, but I don't think you're giving Microsoft enough credit for what they've already done in this area.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know enough about IronPython or IronRuby to really comment on them. I did read an article by a web designer finding it easier creating his website when he regressed from IronPython (or IronRuby, I can't remember which) to PHP, but as that's an isolated instance I'll treat it that way.

I think you are missing the point of my post, as I probably failed to express myself properly, but what I haven't seen coming from these MS opens source projects is the kind of tight nit, independent community that I see everywhere else in the open source world. I know that MS has released allot of code, but as I have said before, code does not equal community.

For example: Sun released the code for OpenSolaris using their own license, the CDDL. In a very short space of time, multiple 'distributions' sprang up around the code base, it attracted some serious developers from outside the ranks of Sun employees and nurtured a community that has grown exponentially ever since.

From MS, the only such instances that I have heard of are projects that where started by Miguel de Icaza, mostly without any start up help from MS. Yet even those projects seem to be run and contributed to almost entirely by Novell engineers.

That's not a community that's going to help foster the real and tangible results that open source can offer.

I don't know all the reasons for why people would have a phobia of joining MS opens source projects but I do get the impression much of it has to do with not trusting MS. One fear I have heard repeated several times is that MS might change the license of the code at some stage in the future, using it for a commercial project without releasing any changes MS might have made back into the community.

As I haven't really studied the licenses, I don't know if any of them make previsions for those fears mentioned above. My not knowing is not going to make any difference, though. It's the fear of developers that will be the greatest detriment to the fostering of such communities.

What I'm trying to say is that, unless MS can foster the kind of trust needed to rally a community of open source engineers around a project, they will never get the kind of benefits the BSDs and Linux gets.

Hey Molly. We often find ourselves on different sides of the fence. But this is a day on which we can both celebrate. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, we need to walk the high ground. The OSI did the right thing.

This does not mean that I am not suspicious of MS's motives. It does not mean that I do not think that this might be part of a new and conniving strategy of theirs.

But I know, for sure, that compromising one's principles, for the sake of strategy, is a sure way to become the enemy. Or, at least, become as bad as the enemy.

There is already lots of MS-PL code out there

That's news to me, and probably a lot of other people as well.

OSI retains credibility. If they had caved into the Microsoft haters (both within OSI (like ESR and Google's Cris DiBona(sp?)) and without), and rejected the licenses for political purposes, then OSI would've ceased to be relevant, so large the credibility hit would've been.

Let's get this perfectly clear here - the OSI are not the organisation who needs credibility sweetheart. Like it or lump it, an organisation like the OSI is an organisation of interested parties that seeks to further the open source movement and is perfectly entitled to reject anyone who isn't in tune with that movement. Talking about strict licensing criteria does not apply.

The OSI owes Microsoft nothing, so let's be clear.

People who object cannot just be labelled 'Microsoft haters'. Microsoft has stated very publicly and very clearly its dislike, irritation and sometimes outright hatred of open source software. They have decided to do that. Like it or lump it, that is and should be a concern for the OSI because Microsoft are going to start using the OSI logo everywhere for credibility they simply do not deserve in the open source world.

How much do you want to bet that Microsoft employees will now disappear from the OSI mailing lists now they've got what they wanted, in just the fashion that the ISO cannot pass anything because all the new members who voted on OOXML are now suddenly disinterested? ;-)

What makes their source code under these licenses Windows-only that can't be fixed by extending support libraries in other systems to support it, or rewriting the platform-specific portions?

One could as easily state that the Linux kernel isn't really free because it doesn't run under Windows as native software using that line of reasoning.

Steve would say IP infringement.

"As usual for MICROS~1, all these softwares will run only in windows and using a lot of MS-only proprietary technologies. Where are the freedom to run where we want ?! "

Your premise is absurd. You're saying that any open source project that relies on particular functionality of a platform isn't free as in "freedom"? With an open source project, so you have the "freedom" to port the project to whatever platform you want.

BTW, you're wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.

Edited 2007-10-17 00:34

"""
[q]BTW, you're wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.[q]
"""

Well... "has released" is a different animal than "usually releases". You have to admit that while the OSS world is virtually obsessed with cross-platform, Microsoft's general nature has been to tie things to Windows. Sure there are exceptions. IronPython... MS Office on Mac. But they *are* exceptions to the general rule.

But who knows? Maybe MS is getting ready to turn over a new leaf. ;-)

BTW, you're wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.

It runs on Mono, simply because Microsoft has not and will not release a .Net platform that runs on anything other than Windows.

If you're wondering if many people are seriously questioning Microsoft's open source credentials here, yes, we are. Get used to it.

And? The CLI is an open specification. Mono is an implementation of that specification.
.NET is another implementation.

The languages implemented in both instances are CLI compliant which is why they are able to be run on both platforms.

You're thinking of .NET as a Microsoft abomination, it's an implementation of a specification that you can download right now if you so please.

Furthermore, I think there is a bigger issue here.
Microsoft does not (and should not) have to conform to what the FSF defines as "Open Source".

Not having the blessing of an organization with a mutual hatred with Microsoft doesn't seem like it'd cause Microsoft any sleepless nights.

I mainly see the Ms-Pl/Ms-Rl as a convenience license for when they release samples, or even portions of their own platforms.

It's perfectly sound to take Microsoft's stance with a grain of salt, it'd also be smart to look passed the name of the corporaion and to the (positive) strides taken by said company to make the life of it's developers more convenient.

I really doubt Microsoft cares much about open source "as you see it", more like it does find the Open Source distribution model attractive and sees it as a viable method of working with it's own developer community.

0.2c

And? The CLI is an open specification. Mono is an implementation of that specification. .NET is another implementation.

No it isn't. The absolute bare minimum is specified to get a minimal CLR up and running like Rotor. To get anything close to something useful Mono had to implement a lot of classes that aren't specified.

You're thinking of .NET as a Microsoft abomination, it's an implementation of a specification that you can download right now if you so please.

No it isn't.