Microsoft met with the OSI board this week to discuss their new Shared Source licences. “After their announcement this week, MS did meet with a quorum of the OSI Board and we discussed our commitment to equal application of the license approval process and gave them very preliminary feedback on the licenses as they appear on the MSDN Web site. So far, MS’s licenses have not yet been submitted to License-Discuss for public discussion, but OSI is hopeful that they will be,” OSI stated. Other OSS prominents, like Tim o’Reilly and, believe it or not, the FSF, have already been positive about the new licenses.
Odds are good if the FSF approves some of these new “shared source” licenses then the OSI will too. The FSF is at the extreme fringes of the open source movement, with the OSI being far more moderate. (The FSF doesn’t even like the traditional BSD license because of the advertising clause!)
>The FSF is at the extreme fringes of the open source movement
No, the FSF has nothing to to with the open source movement.
By the way, in some points the Debian guys are “more extreme” than the FSF.
The FSF doesn’t even like the traditional BSD license because of the advertising clause!
What do you mean by “doesn’t even like”. It’s not about like or not like. The FSF and different persons in the FSF “like” one license more than another. The same applies to the OSI and every other organisation. But also the FSF call the traditional BSD license is a free software license. -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Microsoft is ready to go Linux way: give away software for free and charge for services.
Windows OpenSource AstalaVista Hacker Edition- free
Windows Updates- $4.49/year
Antivirus- $2.95/year
Antispyware- $0.49/year
Windows New Marketplace- $0.99 membership fee, 10% discount on all software bought guaranteed for members.
Instead of taking $45 once every 5 years for OS that came with computer and miss revenue on pirated software, why not charge $9/year for all these services?
Software must be free, but it is OK to charge for services. Works for IBM. Will work for Microsoft.
Ironic, is not it?
Would they pull an Apple?
Like making the kernel and basic API MS-CL and then keeping the special stuff under a propietary license.
I mean It would be cool to have an OpenNT(even if it’s based on the NT4 codebase)
Maybe won’t happen but one can dream. Right?
We’re Microsoft and we’re submitting some licenses for approval that we’ll personally never use in order to make ourselves look open!
Microsoft has done this countless times in the past in various guises.
We’re Microsoft and we’re submitting some licenses for approval that we’ll personally never use in order to make ourselves look open!
You’re a KDE fanboy, what do you care what Microsoft releases? You wouldn’t know what to do with the source code anyway.
You’re a KDE fanboy,
Wow, thank you. I take it you’re not a fanboy of any kind then :-)?
what do you care what Microsoft releases?
Apart from the fact that I work with the cra, I mean stuff all the time?
You wouldn’t know what to do with the source code anyway.
At the moment, bin it. I wouldn’t know what to do with it, and based on past form no one else does either. All Microsoft’s Shared Source licenses so far have been a failure because it basically amounts to Microsoft owning the code you contribute.
Wow, thank you. I take it you’re not a fanboy of any kind then :-)?
Not really. I see the strengths and weaknesses of all platforms. I’ve been using Linux for 8 years and have yet to become a fanboy. I’ve been using windows for longer and have yet to become a fanboy. I know in some alternative OSNews reality people have to take sides.
Apart from the fact that I work with the cra, I mean stuff all the time?
Yeah, I’m sure you (or anybody else) really wants to delve into some win32 api crap.
At the moment, bin it. I wouldn’t know what to do with it, and based on past form no one else does either. All Microsoft’s Shared Source licenses so far have been a failure because it basically amounts to Microsoft owning the code you contribute.
Then how come the FSF and now OSI are “approving” the licenses.
Yeah, I’m sure you (or anybody else) really wants to delve into some win32 api crap.
I’d like to delve into it. I have to use it anyway, and there are some obvious flaws to fix. You don’t have to be a genius to fix some of the flaws.
But the swapping technology is not something I could handle. But certain parts of the API are so wellknown to me, that I could fix it – with access to the source that is
Then how come the FSF and now OSI are “approving” the licenses.
This is because the said licenses are completely different than the earlier licenses, which are not approved by either FSF or OSI.
Not really. I see the strengths and weaknesses of all platforms. I’ve been using Linux for 8 years and have yet to become a fanboy. I’ve been using windows for longer and have yet to become a fanboy.
Whatever.
Yeah, I’m sure you (or anybody else) really wants to delve into some win32 api crap.
You’re right there, but it would be nice to see some more openness in it so people know what the hell’s going on.
Then how come the FSF and now OSI are “approving” the licenses.
They haven’t approved anything, and no one quite knows what the licenses are. At the moment people have been positive about Microsoft’s possible move.
Free Software is not just about being able to hack on it yourself.
I’m guessing that Microsoft will use that fact that some of their “shared source” licences are approved to promote that other “shared source” licences that aren’t approved.
Neat little trick I’d say.
If the OSI approves these licenses that just proves the OSI’s stupidity. Microsoft is not to be trusted. Microsoft is a dead company, they are in their death throes. Let Microsoft die. They have inferior software and I know of no one who uses Microsoft Windows or Microsoft software for any serious computing. Windows is a joke, Microsoft is a joke and they do not have a prayer in competing with Linux.
Hi Molineuf..or other random Linux zealot
Could be a Mac zealot. I don’t think Molineuf would post as anonymous.
Stop the name calling.
Stop the name calling.
Haha, so molineuff or this random person isn’t a zealot?
With the combination of Google and Open Source. The Microsoft empire is coming down. What major players use Windows anymore? Who is doing any serious work on the Windows platform? The answer to both is no one. Microsoft Windows is dead, its called karma. Bill Gates and Co for years have been pushing inferior products onto the market and now, suddenly they want to have licenses recognized as Open Source, its crap.
Microsoft will not utilize nor release anything important under these licenses. As I stated, the OSI wants to fall for it its their stupidity. F$%*ck Microsoft and their high horse. Mark my words, if the OSI talks about certifying these licenses than when it comes to play and when Microsoft screws em, I will personally send a letter to the OSI president with 4 little words, “I Told You So”
You call Molineuf a zealot, but your own user page has your overall score as a minus ?
that means only one thing fella….
you are a troll yourself
Calling FSF or Debian group or any group extreme for that matter depends on where you are viewing it from.
None of these are extreme, they only posses different aims and are successful at carrying them out.
Likewise, you could call Microsoft extreme for crushing OS competition. Microsoft are merely successful at crushing all their competition, legally or illegally.
The people over at MS are clearly not stupid.
The have the brains and cash to atleast
restructure the company if it will come to that.
The demise of MS is a long way ahead.
Hopefully they will shrink substantially though…
the previous “Shared Source” ones, because they never gave the licensee enough freedom and rights.
Otherwise they’d lose even more standing in the market, and get even closer to collapse.
I thought the OSI wanted to reduce the number of approved licenses and encourage reuse of licenses intead of approving new ones. Do those licenses really bring something new compared to the ones they’re supposed to be close of? (the BSD for one and the Mozilla for the other)