For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Bill Hilf]

Chris:

I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission process are designed to facilitate.  You're questioning things such as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.

If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to - and I have a number of questions for you about Google's use of and intentions with open source software as well.  But this is unrelated to the OSD compliance of a license, so I will do this off-list and preferably face to face or over the phone.

One question I think is related to our license submission is your question 'b' below.  If the license-discuss community feels that having the MS-CL and MS-PL posted separately from our other Shared Source licenses, I'm happy to consider doing that, if that's important to the broader community.  One of the reasons we continued to call it the "Shared Source" program was to acknowledge that these licenses had not been approved by the OSI, and some of our Shared Source licenses will not be submitted to the OSI.  But I'm open to make this more distinguishable on where/how we post the MS-CL and MS-PL on the Web site if it's important to the community.

The other license submission question you raise is about additional licenses in an era when the OSI is trying to reduce license proliferation.  There are already several hundred community projects that use these licenses, including over 150 Microsoft projects; while these are two more licenses they represent a reasonably large set of existing code, the authors and users of which would benefit from having the licenses assessed as Open Source.

-Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris DiBona [mailto:cdibona@...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:48 PM
> To: Chuck Swiger
> Cc: Matthew Flaschen; License Discuss
> Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
>
> 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 Source
> b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
> licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
> c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
> open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
> d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
> to 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?
>
> Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be
> approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses
> and reduce license proliferation? I'm asked this for all recent
> license-submitters and you are no different :-)
>
> Chris
>
> On 8/13/07, Chuck Swiger <chuck@...> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > > Chuck Swiger wrote:
> > >> Really?  Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL
> with
> > >> others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute
> > >> the
> > >> resulting binary together with the various source files,
> preserving
> > >> their original licensing?
> > >
> > > You can if you keep them in separate files.  But this is less
> > > compatible
> > > than e.g. BSD, which allows you to include BSD code in a file under
> > > essentially any license as long as the BSD license notice remains
> > > intact.
> >
> > True.  You've made a set of points in partial reply to me and also to
> > Donovin which are well taken, so I won't reply to each individually,
> > but I do wish to acknowledge that I agree with your position in
> > them.  :-)
> >
> > --
> > -Chuck
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:

> I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
> think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
> seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license.

No, there's a significant difference, in that MS-PL isn't compatible
with copyleft licenses because it explicitly prohibits sublicensing.

>  The MS-CL is slightly different and seems to be compatible with a number of other
> Free and non-Free open source licenses (included by my reading all
> versions of the GPL and MPL).

No, it isn't compatible with the GPL because the combination would have
to be under the GPL and MS-CL of course also prohibits sublicensing (as
you would expect from a copyleft license).

Matt Flaschen

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bill Hilf wrote:
> One question I think is related to our license submission is your
> question 'b' below.  If the license-discuss community feels that
> having the MS-CL and MS-PL posted separately from our other Shared
> Source licenses, I'm happy to consider doing that, if that's
> important to the broader community.

I think this would be a very useful step.  If OSI approves these
licenses, it will be recognizing that part of Microsoft's shared source
licensing program is open source.  Microsoft could reciprocate by
clearly distinguishing this part from the rest.

  One of the reasons we continued
> to call it the "Shared Source" program was to acknowledge that these
> licenses had not been approved by the OSI, and some of our Shared
> Source licenses will not be submitted to the OSI.

I definitely appreciate that you have never called unapproved licenses
open source.  Chris may feel that the "shared source" name is too
similar, but I disagree; appropriate education can make the difference
clear.

I also agree that neither of these issues should affect OSI approval.

Matt Flaschen

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav-2]

Bill Hilf <billhilf@...> writes:
> I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license
> submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission
> process are designed to facilitate.  You're questioning things such
> as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses
> on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could
> find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.

Basically, Chris doesn't want the OSI do approve a license submitted
by an organization of which he personally disapproves, regardless of
the merits of the license itself.  Hey, I can sympathize - personally,
I really don't approve of the FSF, and I'd love to see the OSI turn
down the GPLv3.

Except I wouldn't, really, because then the OSI would lose every shred
of credibility and quickly become irrelevant - just like it would if
it failed to carefully consider the licenses submitted by Microsoft,
or to approve them if they were found to adhere to the OSD.  I don't
want the OSI to lose its credibility and become irrelevant, and I
believe that both licenses submitted by Microsoft are OSD-compliant.

> If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to - and I have a number
> of questions for you about Google's use of and intentions with open
> source software as well.

But Google is good!  Google can do no evil!  It says so right there in
the bylaws!

*smack*

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

[Chris DiBona]

Actually, if you read my original email, you'll see that I don't have
a lot of issues with the licenses themselves, outside of their
redundancy. But I think that Microsoft's behavior deserves discussion,
because the reality is that Bill's employer will use OSI's approval
against it.

OSI should not trade on its reputation lightly. Again, this is not a
discussion about licenses but whether or not it is wise for OSI to
enable its most vicious competitor.

You may want to try to paint this as personal disapproval, but if you
look on any search engine you would be hard pressed to find anything
from me personally about Microsoft outside of windows refund day in
1998. Note that trying to turn this into a discussion about FSF or
Google or me completely dodges the issue, so , you know, nice try and
all. I'm more than happy to discuss Google's frankly incredibly
awesome open source practices (including pr, press quotes, not
creating new licenses, marketing and the rest) in a  different thread,

Chris

On 8/17/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> wrote:

> Bill Hilf <billhilf@...> writes:
> > I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license
> > submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission
> > process are designed to facilitate.  You're questioning things such
> > as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses
> > on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could
> > find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.
>
> Basically, Chris doesn't want the OSI do approve a license submitted
> by an organization of which he personally disapproves, regardless of
> the merits of the license itself.  Hey, I can sympathize - personally,
> I really don't approve of the FSF, and I'd love to see the OSI turn
> down the GPLv3.
>
> Except I wouldn't, really, because then the OSI would lose every shred
> of credibility and quickly become irrelevant - just like it would if
> it failed to carefully consider the licenses submitted by Microsoft,
> or to approve them if they were found to adhere to the OSD.  I don't
> want the OSI to lose its credibility and become irrelevant, and I
> believe that both licenses submitted by Microsoft are OSD-compliant.
>
> > If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to - and I have a number
> > of questions for you about Google's use of and intentions with open
> > source software as well.
>
> But Google is good!  Google can do no evil!  It says so right there in
> the bylaws!
>
> *smack*
>
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Senior Software Developer
> Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Chris DiBona]

And by Personally, I mean "negative", and I'd assert that windows
refund day was a pretty positive thing :-)

Chris

On 8/17/07, Chris DiBona <cdibona@...> wrote:

> Actually, if you read my original email, you'll see that I don't have
> a lot of issues with the licenses themselves, outside of their
> redundancy. But I think that Microsoft's behavior deserves discussion,
> because the reality is that Bill's employer will use OSI's approval
> against it.
>
> OSI should not trade on its reputation lightly. Again, this is not a
> discussion about licenses but whether or not it is wise for OSI to
> enable its most vicious competitor.
>
> You may want to try to paint this as personal disapproval, but if you
> look on any search engine you would be hard pressed to find anything
> from me personally about Microsoft outside of windows refund day in
> 1998. Note that trying to turn this into a discussion about FSF or
> Google or me completely dodges the issue, so , you know, nice try and
> all. I'm more than happy to discuss Google's frankly incredibly
> awesome open source practices (including pr, press quotes, not
> creating new licenses, marketing and the rest) in a  different thread,
>
> Chris
>
> On 8/17/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> wrote:
> > Bill Hilf <billhilf@...> writes:
> > > I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license
> > > submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission
> > > process are designed to facilitate.  You're questioning things such
> > > as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses
> > > on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could
> > > find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.
> >
> > Basically, Chris doesn't want the OSI do approve a license submitted
> > by an organization of which he personally disapproves, regardless of
> > the merits of the license itself.  Hey, I can sympathize - personally,
> > I really don't approve of the FSF, and I'd love to see the OSI turn
> > down the GPLv3.
> >
> > Except I wouldn't, really, because then the OSI would lose every shred
> > of credibility and quickly become irrelevant - just like it would if
> > it failed to carefully consider the licenses submitted by Microsoft,
> > or to approve them if they were found to adhere to the OSD.  I don't
> > want the OSI to lose its credibility and become irrelevant, and I
> > believe that both licenses submitted by Microsoft are OSD-compliant.
> >
> > > If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to - and I have a number
> > > of questions for you about Google's use of and intentions with open
> > > source software as well.
> >
> > But Google is good!  Google can do no evil!  It says so right there in
> > the bylaws!
> >
> > *smack*
> >
> > DES
> > --
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> > Senior Software Developer
> > Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
> >
>
>
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Chris Travers]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>  
>> I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
>> think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
>> seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license.
>>    
>
> No, there's a significant difference, in that MS-PL isn't compatible
> with copyleft licenses because it explicitly prohibits sublicensing.
>
>  
>>  The MS-CL is slightly different and seems to be compatible with a number of other
>> Free and non-Free open source licenses (included by my reading all
>> versions of the GPL and MPL).
>>    
>
> No, it isn't compatible with the GPL because the combination would have
> to be under the GPL and MS-CL of course also prohibits sublicensing (as
> you would expect from a copyleft license).
>  

I haven't seen this in either license.  Maybe you could enlighten me?  

The MS-PL's restrictions seem to be:
1)  No trademark license
2)  Patent licenses end if you initate lawsuits over any patents in
covered software
3) Redistribution requires compatible license
4)  No warranty.

The MS-CL also requires:
1)  "Reciprocal grants" meaning that those you redistribute the software
to get it under the terms of the same license
2)  All copyright notices must remain intact.

Did I miss something?  Or are we talking about different licenses?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
The MS-CL seems to have the additional requirement of
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
>  


[chris.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[John Cowan]

Chris DiBona scripsit:

> OSI should not trade on its reputation lightly. Again, this is not a
> discussion about licenses but whether or not it is wise for OSI to
> enable its most vicious competitor.

When Abraham Lincoln announced to his cabinet after the Civil War that he
intended to forgive the Southerners and do whatever he could to restore
the South, his Secretary of State objected, saying, "Mr. President, I
think we ought to destroy our enemies." Lincoln answered him this way:
"Mr. Secretary, do we not destroy our enemies when we make them our
friends?"

A later U.S. President also said, "Trust, but verify."

--
John Cowan   cowan@...    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley

[Chris Travers]

Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:

> Bill Hilf <billhilf@...> writes:
>  
>> I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license
>> submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission
>> process are designed to facilitate.  You're questioning things such
>> as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses
>> on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could
>> find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.
>>    
>
> Basically, Chris doesn't want the OSI do approve a license submitted
> by an organization of which he personally disapproves, regardless of
> the merits of the license itself.  Hey, I can sympathize - personally,
> I really don't approve of the FSF, and I'd love to see the OSI turn
> down the GPLv3.
>  

Well put.  I would add that I think the OSI should turn down any

licenses from any submitters (FSF, Microsoft, or otherwise) if there are
unanswered valid concerns about how well it meets the OSD.  But I think
approval discussion should be limited to the scope of the license though
polite requests may be broader.
> Except I wouldn't, really, because then the OSI would lose every shred
> of credibility and quickly become irrelevant - just like it would if
> it failed to carefully consider the licenses submitted by Microsoft,
> or to approve them if they were found to adhere to the OSD.
Agreed.  I do think that the license proliferation questions are valid
but should not be grounds for rejecting the license.  I think it is
perfectly reasonable to ask "do you *really* need these licenses?  Would
you consider adopting existing licenses instead?"    But I would not
suggest rejecting the license based on any answer.

>   I don't
> want the OSI to lose its credibility and become irrelevant, and I
> believe that both licenses submitted by Microsoft are OSD-compliant.
>  
See my points above in response to Chris's request for information.  I
would further note that many of the answers to Chris's questions were
actually found in the archive of this thread :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[Chris Travers]

Chris DiBona wrote:
> Actually, if you read my original email, you'll see that I don't have
> a lot of issues with the licenses themselves, outside of their
> redundancy. But I think that Microsoft's behavior deserves discussion,
> because the reality is that Bill's employer will use OSI's approval
> against it.
>  
I don't know.  I have been around Microsoft professionally since 1999
when I was hired there as a temp.  Today, I have done work for the Open
Source Software Lab (several of my papers have appeared on Port 25 and
several more are awaiting feedback from that team) and so although I
cannot speak for Microsoft I can provide a close third-party point of view.

Microsoft is changing.  My own view as an outsider is that they
understand that open source is a serious threat to their revenue streams
but don't really know what to do about it (i.e. there is no real plan
yet).  The response seems to include on one hand the OSSL which has done
a lot of work in the area of improving interop, providing recipies for
interop, and even working with potentially directly competing projects
like Samba.

On the other hand, I think that Balmer has done what he can to assure
stockholders that Microsoft is able to monetize the open source trend by
threatening patent litigation.  (They can't because they would probably
never get out much more than they would put into it as patents when
named would be worked around quite fast, and getting enough revenue to
support their growth would probably be impossible through such suits.)

In short I don't see an organized response from Microsoft.  I don't
think that an organized response to the questions is therefore
possible.  My thoughts on what Microsoft needs to do to survive the
coming market changes is off-topic for this thread though ;-).

> OSI should not trade on its reputation lightly. Again, this is not a
> discussion about licenses but whether or not it is wise for OSI to
> enable its most vicious competitor.
>  
I dunno about whether Microsoft is our "most vicious competitor."  I can
think of a number of other potential candidates some of whom have
submitted licenses which were approved.  At least one of these
candidates has even directly attacked the OSI and the "Open Source"
movements.  Microsoft's attacks have been limited to competing projects
and only one class of licenses (and unlike a different candidate, they
aren't directly involved in any legal activity against open source
software).

Or maybe you have a less inclusive first person plural which does not
relate to the people involved in "Open Source?"
> You may want to try to paint this as personal disapproval, but if you
> look on any search engine you would be hard pressed to find anything
> from me personally about Microsoft outside of windows refund day in
> 1998. Note that trying to turn this into a discussion about FSF or
> Google or me completely dodges the issue, so , you know, nice try and
> all. I'm more than happy to discuss Google's frankly incredibly
> awesome open source practices (including pr, press quotes, not
> creating new licenses, marketing and the rest) in a  different thread,
>  
I would think your above comments make it clear this is about personal
disapproval of the organization.  Once again, we don't and shouldn't
hold RMS's comments or FSF pages which complain about our lack of ethics
against them when we consider licenses for approval, nor do we consider
RMS's comments against BSD and Apache licenses against approval of the
GPL.  We don't do this because they are not relevant to the discussion
of whether the license can be used by other parties in the development
of Free/Open Source Software.

Since my concerns haven't sunk in, let me put it this way:

Why should we hold Steve Balmer's comments against the GPL, Linux, etc.
against Microsoft and use this as a basis to reject the license when we
are not considering statements made by the FSF directly against the OSI
as grounds to reject the GPL v3?

Why should we hold Microsoft's position against the GPL against it, when
we do not hold attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses against them when
approving the GPL v3?

Should these be relevant?  If they should, I am more than happy to raise
them on the appropriate threads.  Even though I *have* looked for a
basis for us to reject the GPL v3 within the confines of the OSD, I have
never brought in things outside the license because I do not believe
that they are relevant.  But if they are, then let's consider them on
the appropriate threads.

(I think the general concensus is that they are *not* relevant, and
therefore we should suggest that they be used as the basis for such a
decision.)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Chris Travers (chris@...):

> Why should we hold Microsoft's position against the GPL against it, when
> we do not hold attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses against them when
> approving the GPL v3?

Please cite instances of "attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses".  One
URL at which same can be read would suffice.

The only critique by Richard against a BSD licence is his pointing out
the long-ago "obnoxious advertising clause" creating accumulating problems
in deriviative works, especially in a commercial context, and creating
mostly gratuituous compatibility problems.  Even that cannot be fairly
characterised as an "attack" against old-BSD, but rather deploring some
side-effects of that one clause.  E.g.:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Chris DiBona (cdibona@...):

> And by Personally, I mean "negative", and I'd assert that windows
> refund day was a pretty positive thing :-)

Not bad, for damage control, IIRC.  ;->
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511127721.html
(Skip to "Let's come to the Windows refund day in February 1999.")

I especially enjoyed that bit about them locking out the elevators, and
hiding from their customers.

--
Cheers,        English is essentially what happens when you can't decide whether
Rick Moen      the Greeks or the Romans had the better civilization, so you ask
rick@...    everybody they ever beat up on to sort it out.
                       -- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html

[Chris Travers]

Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Chris Travers (chris@...):
>
>  
>> Why should we hold Microsoft's position against the GPL against it, when
>> we do not hold attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses against them when
>> approving the GPL v3?
>>    
>
> Please cite instances of "attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses".  One
> URL at which same can be read would suffice.
>
> The only critique by Richard against a BSD licence is his pointing out
> the long-ago "obnoxious advertising clause" creating accumulating problems
> in deriviative works, especially in a commercial context, and creating
> mostly gratuituous compatibility problems.  Even that cannot be fairly
> characterised as an "attack" against old-BSD, but rather deploring some
> side-effects of that one clause.  E.g.:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
>
>
>  

I will be happy reply on an appropriate with this as I do not believe

that it is relevant to *either* this thread nor the question of GPL v3
approval.  Myonly question is why Chris Dibona seems to think that an
organization whom many consider an "enemy" should be singled out for
special treatment.  I don't believe that they should.

Soon I intend to post a set of warnings about what we should be
concerned about in the future relating to comments from RMS, the FSF,
and the GPL v3 process.  While this will be under an appropriate GPL v3
thread, it will not be intended as an objection to the approval of that
license, just things to watch for in the future based on past performance.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@...):

> I think this would be a very useful step.  If OSI approves these
> licenses, it will be recognizing that part of Microsoft's shared source
> licensing program is open source.

That would be, as it turns out, because those two licences _are_ open
source, and constitutes what we call "recognition of obvious truth" and
"conducting a certification mark programme with integrity".

> Microsoft could reciprocate by clearly distinguishing this part from
> the rest.

It would indeed be good for Microsoft Corporation to make some effort to
distinguish licences that are open source from ones that aren't.  Maybe
a Venn diagram on the Shared Source Web page.  ;->  (Not intended as a
serious suggestion.  Some readers may need to consult a professional
humourist.)

--
Cheers,                English is essentially a language in which "up" has
Rick Moen              forty-seven dictionary definitions, but
rick@...    antidisestablishmentarianism is considered a "hard word."
                       -- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Chris Travers (chris@...):

> I will be happy reply on an appropriate with this as I do not believe
> that it is relevant to *either* this thread nor the question of GPL v3
> approval.

Is this a fancy way of saying "Sorry, I must have been mistaken, and
RMS did _not_ in fact conduct 'attacks against the BSD licenses'?"
Because, otherwise, you seem to have broken my wetware parser with input
that doesn't scan.

(Any resemblance to my shoveling overblown rhetoric into the dustbin
might just be mistaken.  Or not.)

--
Cheers,                English is essentially a text parser's way of getting
Rick Moen              faster processors built.
rick@...    -- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html

[Chris DiBona]

> My only question is why Chris Dibona seems to think that an
> organization whom many consider an "enemy" should be singled out for
> special treatment.  I don't believe that they should.

An I'm okay with us disagreeing, I promise :-) I think they should be
asked to at the very least segregate the licenses and make abundantly
clear which are 'open source' and which are not.  Bill seems okay with
that, and that's a nice thing. No one else was asking so I took it
upon myself to do it.

Also and again I'm happy to chat about RMS in another thread but this
is about Microsoft and not the FSF and If you are looking for real
evidence of Microsoft's change of heart towards open source and open
standards, I'd ask Peter Quinn what he thinks about that.

Chris

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:

>> No, it isn't compatible with the GPL because the combination would have
>> to be under the GPL and MS-CL of course also prohibits sublicensing (as
>> you would expect from a copyleft license).
>>  
> I haven't seen this in either license.  Maybe you could enlighten me?  
> The MS-PL's restrictions seem to be:
> 1)  No trademark license
> 2)  Patent licenses end if you initate lawsuits over any patents in
> covered software
> 3) Redistribution requires compatible license
> 4)  No warranty.

The phrase "you may do so only under this license by including a
complete copy of this license with your distribution." is in both
licenses.  Jon confirmed this is the submission email by writing, "The
MS-PL license explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed
code under a different license, regardless of whether the original code
is redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece of
software.".  In my interpretation (IANAL), this clause means MS-PL code
can't be used in a GPL program.

Matt Flaschen

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@...):
>
>> I think this would be a very useful step.  If OSI approves these
>> licenses, it will be recognizing that part of Microsoft's shared source
>> licensing program is open source.
>
> That would be, as it turns out, because those two licences _are_ open
> source, and constitutes what we call "recognition of obvious truth" and
> "conducting a certification mark programme with integrity".

I agree, and that's why I said we should approve the licenses regardless
of whether Microsoft actually does distinguish the OSI-approved licenses
from the rest.

Matt Flaschen

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Chris Travers (chris@...):
>
>> Why should we hold Microsoft's position against the GPL against it, when
>> we do not hold attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses against them when
>> approving the GPL v3?
>
> Please cite instances of "attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses".  One
> URL at which same can be read would suffice.
>
> The only critique by Richard against a BSD licence

Of course, he has lightly criticized non-copyleft licenses in general
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html).  But I don't think
this could remotely be considered an *attack*.

Matt Flaschen

[Michael R. Bernstein]

On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 01:58 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
> > think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
> > seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license.
>
> No, there's a significant difference, in that MS-PL isn't compatible
> with copyleft licenses because it explicitly prohibits sublicensing.

I think you're missing the point that both of these licenses are
incompatible with *any* other license, no matter how permissive. A file
under MS-PL can't even incorporate BSD-licensed code. That takes
*special* effort.

As far as I can tell, the MS-PL and MS-CL licenses aren't even
compatible with each other, in either direction.

When we talk about 'license proliferation' as a problem, it's important
to note that aside from the annoying confusion that the number of
licenses per-se engenders, the real problems are side effects such as
immiscible codebases.

This Highlander[1] requirement deliberately and explicitly cranks the
imiscibility up to eleven, for no good reason I can see.

In the spirit of license-discuss, where it is not uncommon to suggest
general improvements to submitted licenses even if they are not strictly
required for OSD-compliance, I want to know if Microsoft is willing to
improve these licenses by changing 'you may do so only under this
license' to 'you must do so under this license' or similar phrasing in
order to leave the door open for compatible licenses and dual-licensing.

- Michael R. Bernstein
  michaelbernstein.com

[1] ie. 'There Can Be Only One'