ie8 fix
Click Here

Microsoft gets the open-source licensing nod from the OSI

By | October 16, 2007, 10:57am PDT

Summary: Microsoft was awarded an official Open Source Initiative (OSI) approval for the two Shared Source licenses it submitted for consideration in August — but not without agreeing to some OSI-requested changes first.

Microsoft was awarded an official Open Source Initiative (OSI) approval for the two Shared Source licenses it submitted for consideration in August — but not without agreeing to some OSI-requested changes first.

Microsoft gets the open-source licensing nod from the OSIOn October 16, Microsoft officials announced that the Microsoft Permissive License (MS-PL) — which is now known as the Microsoft Public License (MSP) — and Microsoft Community License (MS-CL) — now designated as the Microsoft Reciprocal License (MSL) had gotten the OSI Board’s nod. Microsoft did not submit its Microsoft Reference License (MS-RL) for OSI consideration.

There was considerable push-back from a number of open-source backers, especially around the Microsoft Permissive License, when Microsoft submitted two of its three Shared Source licenses for OSI standards consideration. While some open-source backers welcomed Microsoft to the party, others wondered aloud about Microsoft’s reasons for seeking OSI approval now.

“I personally enjoyed hearing the wide diversity of opinions from the community, including the legal professionals who weighed in on the discussion,” blogged Rosenberg on October 16.

Rosenberg noted that Microsoft altered the names of its licenses at the open-source community’s request and is working on clarifying its language around Shared Source/open source terminology. Rosenberg explained:

“During the discussion period, we were pleased to respond to the communities requests for additional clarity in the licenses by renaming them to the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License. In the process of the license discussion, we also heard additional calls for more clarity in our communication regarding the wide range of Shared Source licensing options available from Microsoft. Some Shared Source licenses clearly meet the open source definition and others do not. In the future, we will continue to solicit feedback from the community to ensure crisp delineation of these different license types on our website.”

What changes, now that Microsoft has gotten the OSI stamp of approval? According to a company spokeswoman:

  • Microsoft has committed to publishing these licenses separately on our web site as to not confuse with other Shared Source offerings. This will be forthcoming.
  • Developers who choose to use the (new licenses)can be confident that their code is OSD compliant. The OSI maintains the OSD here: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
  • Shared Source is the program at Microsoft that will continue to maintain these licenses.

What do you expect Microsoft to do with its OSI-approved licenses? Rosenberg said folks shoudl expect to see “a lot of great code come out under these two open source licenses and we are happy to be able to call them, ‘OSI Approved.’

Do you anticipate Microsoft will push to have more of its technologies and products released under these new licenses, so that the company will have a greater chance of them being considered “open standards” when submitting technologies for government/RFP consideration? Other thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

57
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft gets the open-source licensing nod from the OSI
makrekdw1201-24353653463772049262880148686797 12th Nov
zmlrfq,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
Oh mah gosh!
Linux User 147560 16th Oct 2007
Hell just froze over! devil
0 Votes
+ -
Sure did.
Duke E. Love 16th Oct 2007
I got my ice skates out from storage. Hopefully Adobe will follow suit. Sun did. I am an Adobe/Sun ho. Java, Flex, AIR, CF and Flash. An one ring to rule them all... Eclipse.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh mah gosh!
aussieblnd@... 17th Oct 2007
Get your skates out baby! And Sharpen them!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
It gets better for users and coders everyday.
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2007
Keep up the good efforts Microsoft!
0 Votes
+ -
The only good license is GPL.
The rest are just some lame wana bees!
0 Votes
+ -
huh?
Someguy2 16th Oct 2007
They want to be bees? o_O
0 Votes
+ -
How does the GPL affect 007
THEE WOLF 16th Oct 2007
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Nice going, troll!
Grayson Peddie 16th Oct 2007
Try again, next time!
0 Votes
+ -
Acually...
Bucky24 17th Oct 2007
The GPL is much better than any other open source licenses. The GNU foundation started open source, and all the rest are just groups that are started by corporations who want their software to look 'open source', so they can feel good about themselves. Microsoft is gonna have to make a lot of changes to get GPL certification, and they know it.

-Bucky24
0 Votes
+ -
The LGPL is better than the GPL
Resuna 17th Oct 2007
And the Microsoft reciprocal license is better than either.
0 Votes
+ -
Only GPL Matters?
angrykeyboarder 19th Oct 2007
So the BSD, MPL and MIT licenses are justt "wannabes" also?
0 Votes
+ -
How so?
CobraA1 17th Oct 2007
How so? I don't really see the benefits - there's plenty of approved licenses out there. What makes Microsoft's licenses any different from other OSI approved licenses?
0 Votes
+ -
These are reasonable licenses.
Resuna 17th Oct 2007
These are both reasonable licenses. The public license is less permissive than the
BSD/MIT family of licenses but it's good. The reciprocal license is definitely more
permissive than the GPL and LGPL.

What Microsoft releases under these licenses, that's what's going to be interesting.
Will they actually put anything into the open source ecosystem that's worthwhile?
0 Votes
+ -
what's reasonable?
zoroaster 18th Oct 2007
Everyone has a different idea of what's reasonable. I don't see the Microsoft licenses as being anywhere near reasonable.
0 Votes
+ -
what's good?
zoroaster 18th Oct 2007
It might be of some little use to existing MS customers - sorry, pirates. It would be of no value to Free Software people - it's bait for "that mob stole Microsoft Patented Technology (R)". Contributors to Free Software should simply avoid ever looking at any MS code, especially if it is released under these so-called 'open source' licenses.
0 Votes
+ -
wait and see
srobtjones@... 16th Oct 2007
Let's not get too excited. Just because they hammered out the terms for two licenses doesn't mean that they will release anything of value under those licenses. Of course, we all hope they do, but that remains to be seen.

So far, they can claim to have two OSI approved licenses, butI know of NO (ZERO - ZILCH - NADA) software released under them. Knowing Microsoft, it will be limited to drivers for Microsoft-badged hardware or Microsoft drivers for 3rd-party devices.

Billy didn't get rich by giving anything away. Let's wait and see...
0 Votes
+ -
Ditto...
dave.leigh@... 16th Oct 2007
And kudos on your channeling abilities. wink This is almost word for word what I'd have written if you hadn't done it first.
0 Votes
+ -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780

thats probably of some value.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't be fooled...
Tony Agudo 16th Oct 2007
Shared Source is not open source. The license chosen for the .NET source code(MS Reference License) fails the open source definition on more than one criteria. Case in point: If you've seen any .NET source code, you can't make code contributions to the Mono project because the license forbids redistribution.

Note to srobtjones: While you are technically correct right now, I suspect Microsoft will follow up by moving software like IronPython to the new Microsoft Public License(it's currently under the old Ms-PL). It makes no sense to get a license OSI-approved and then put nothing under it.
0 Votes
+ -
The MS reference license isn't one of the licenses described here, and it's not even
vaguely related to anything like open source. It's no different from any of the non-
disclosure source-code licenses that companies have been using since the '60s to
release code that was impractical to restrict the distribution of... if anything it's MORE
restrictive than most of them.
0 Votes
+ -
No need to wait and see
easson 16th Oct 2007
You don't seem to be know at all that these licenses have been available for several years, and that a *lot* of software is available under them. All that is happened is that MS submitted the license wording to OSI for approval, and OSI approved them after a name change. So now, MS can now legitimately call the open source software licensed under them as truly "open source". That's all. MS will continue to provide a lot of valuable open source software, as it has done for several years.
0 Votes
+ -
wait and see
aussieblnd@... 17th Oct 2007
Ahh??.. It's just to draw your attention away from the fact they are suing Red Hat oh yeah and also rebooted and installed stuff on your windows computers with out your permission!
0 Votes
+ -
Shareholders are people too.
fr0thy 16th Oct 2007
I just recently got my degree in computers so I know what I'm talking about. Firstly, for software to be proper you need a corporate manager, otherwise you don't even know what you're writing. Secondly, why even write software for free? If you have to, why not write it for the biggest company in the world and give it to them instead of just a bunch of freeloaders? It'll give you Kudos when you say "I gave it to Microsoft". And your friends will think you're hard. Thirdly, if you think about it, if you wrote enough stuff that they like, they might even take you out for lunch one day. And that bit at the end of the news when they tell you about the markets, you can get satisfaction knowing that your coding "made the difference". Fourthly, you gotta have vision in the world outside of yourself. It's no good everybody just creating code like a load of anarchic socialists. We already live in a free world, so why do we need free software too? That's just muddying the waters.
0 Votes
+ -
7.5
SpikeyMike 16th Oct 2007
It would have been a solid 5.0, but I gave you 2.5 for originality!

-Mike
0 Votes
+ -
One clarification point
THEE WOLF 16th Oct 2007
This "write it for the biggest company in the world" is not correct. Exxon would be the most capitalized company in the world MS is like 5 or 6 or even lower.
0 Votes
+ -
Kid, get a clue
nwoodson@... 17th Oct 2007
Every OSS project has a project team, code approval process and central clearinghouse to avoid code duplication and other channel-blocking factors. The point is breakup of a monopoly.

Solaris, Red Hat, Novell-Suse and others are for profit companies, but you can view their source code, modify it and if it's good enough have it included in the final product (except for some Solaris modules). Even if it isn't included in the final product, you can have your own mod for your network. M$ has been fighting this (and anything else that resembles competition) for years.

I'd suggest you study the GPL and the movement before commenting. Satisfaction manifests itself in numerous ways. Why would you "give" someone your work and get a bill for the privilage?
0 Votes
+ -
I'll be at the same party as you when the behemoth implodes (if not throwing the party) :P
0 Votes
+ -
are people
aussieblnd@... 17th Oct 2007
recently got my degree in computers so I know what I'm talking about."

OH MY GAWD Gotta catch my breath here, (Rolling on the floor laughing)

That makes you an expert! When you get the cast off your arm from trying to pat yourself on the back try again!
0 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't trust a rattlesnake
Ole Man 16th Oct 2007
Not to bite me, no matter how many
certificates or licenses they gave him, or
how many agreements he signed.

I wouldn't trust Microsoft any furthur than
I would trust a rattlesnake.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, as if you write code...
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2007
pffttt...
0 Votes
+ -
So what are you doing stuffing all the
groceries delivered by truck down your fat
gullet?
0 Votes
+ -
Impartiality is good
John L. Ries 16th Oct 2007
Since I can't imagine that anyone at OSI would even consider cutting MS any slack, I think we can be confident that the two licenses in question do now conform to the published Open Source Definition. I'm sure Eric Raymond wasn't the only one thinking about denying MS regardless because of recent bad behavior, but I'm glad that OSI ruled only on the matter before them, which was whether the licenses conformed to the spec. This action should not be construed as anything else.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree. However...
Tony Agudo 16th Oct 2007
While I don't mind at all with Microsoft's licenses getting the OSI approval, I'm a bit wary that they may try to "lump in" the clearly non-open source Ms-Reference License through the "Shared Source" banner(We're already seeing this confusion in action: http://tinyurl.com/34abps).
0 Votes
+ -
Time to be vigilant
mannyamador 17th Oct 2007
The open source community has to keep its guard up. Micro$oft has a long history of back-stabbing. There is no way of knowing just how sincere this company is. They may be doing it to confuse and muddle the meaning of "open source" through machinations in the future -- who knows?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
0 Votes
+ -
Vigilance to do what?
No_Ax_to_Grind 17th Oct 2007
I mean its not as if you (or I) are going to do anything to change Microsoft's course. What do you want to be vigilant about?
0 Votes
+ -
Vigilance against confusion, Axey...
Tony Agudo 17th Oct 2007
They may be doing it to confuse and muddle the meaning of "open source" through machinations in the future...

It's now pretty easy to confuse "Shared Source" with open source. Two of Microsoft's licenses got the thumbs up, but what about the third? It failed, but some people could be misled to erroneously "lump in" Ms-Reference License. They should just get rid of the "Shared Source" banner, since it's a bit redundant and confusing, and put the Reference License with it's other proprietary licenses.
0 Votes
+ -
I read them, I understood it.
No_Ax_to_Grind 17th Oct 2007
I wonder why you think others won't?
0 Votes
+ -
Not everyone's a sharp license-reader
Tony Agudo 17th Oct 2007
Read the thread starting with srobtjones' comment, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft's course.
aussieblnd@... 17th Oct 2007
" I mean its not as if you (or I) are going to do anything to change Microsoft's course."
Perhaps not AX but you do not have to buy and or even use Microsoft products. If more people did that the more Microsoft would have to change! No company is too large or to righ to fail!
0 Votes
+ -
Why do you love MS so much?
ben.rattigan 17th Oct 2007
So what your saying is Microsoft will and should be allowed to do whatever it likes?

I am sorry no ax to grind, I know you love Microsoft but the rest of us don't. M$ is greedy and manipulative and they will do all they can to change the meaning of open source.
0 Votes
+ -
Against confusion
mannyamador 18th Oct 2007
Like one of the other sharp posters here noted.

What can we do about it? Discussing and writing about the issue will help make things clear. I think it's to Micro$oft's benefit to confuse the meaning of open source. By speaking out against any attempts to do so -- even in blog comments -- we help in a small way to prevent that. If you have a widely-read blog, you can obviously do a bit more.
0 Votes
+ -
...and
nwoodson@... 17th Oct 2007
We're discussing this at a time when OSS is under seige by patent trolls.........
0 Votes
+ -
Reversal of the "Viral License"?
paul_wagner@... 17th Oct 2007
I remember some comments by Microsoft regarding the "viral" nature of the GPL. This is just speculation, but what if Microsoft's game was to put as much code in the public eye as possible (regardless of whether we would be allowed any freedom in using it) with the intent of "infecting" GPL code with Microsoft "IP" such that there would then be grounds for MS to sue for infringement? THAT is something to be vigilant about, I would think...perhaps the first thing we should do once code is released under any of these licenses is scan it for possible GPL infractions wink
Unless I'm missing something, in M$ land there has to be a huge profit motive. There isn't anything to be gained by actually opening their source code, there has to be a catch. It looks like a way to cut development costs without any real investment.

As it is with .NET, you'll still be using proprietary languages. What are the odds of getting access to ALL of the .NET libraries? That would be truly OSS.
0 Votes
+ -
motive
aussieblnd@... 17th Oct 2007
Of course they have a motive for it.
0 Votes
+ -
No freedom
scott1329 17th Oct 2007
These may be licenses in a legal sense, but they offer absolutely no freedom and are not open source or free software. They should be ignored.
0 Votes
+ -
FUD
crypt2121 17th Oct 2007
That's just FUD.

Freedom != Free or Open Source. Those are choices everyone gets to make with their creations, not something that Stallman forces on you.

When everything HAS to be free, that's not choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Good marketing move
softwareFlunky 17th Oct 2007
By joining their name with Open Source, Microsoft cleans up their image a little and at the same time pollutes the image of the Open Source community. Their policy of "embrace and extend" for taking market share can be replaced with "embrace and pollute" - no technical ability required. Good marketing move.
0 Votes
+ -
Standard operating procedure
Ole Man 17th Oct 2007
Stink bugs just naturally stink up
everything they touch.
0 Votes
+ -
More likely...
John L. Ries 18th Oct 2007
...divide and conquer, but my brief examination of the two licenses in question suggests they conform to Richard Stallman's four freedoms as well. I would suspect that Stallman will provide his own opinion on that subject soon.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Microsoft gets the open-source licensing nod from the OSI
makrekdw1201-24353653463772049262880148686797 12th Nov
zmlrfq,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix