Microsoft vs. OSI Part II

Microsoft vs. OSI Part II

Summary: Microsoft is implicitly agreeing with us that a certain set of freedoms allows creators and users of code to collaborate more closely to produce higher quality software.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Microsoft
5

Some readers think I'm anti-Microsoft. Since I cover open source, I admit to a rooting interest in the subject, just as if I covered Atlanta I'd take a rooting interest in my city.

Still, I want to be fair, and when I criticized Microsoft for not submitting their new licenses to OSI, Russ Nelson was ready.

Microsoft is not hostile to the idea of submitting the licenses.

Their main goal right now is to bring the benefits of open source to their own development community. Microsoft believes that this community and the wider open source community don't overlap very much. They may be right, and they may be wrong. More to the point, however, is that

Microsoft is implicitly agreeing with us that a certain set of freedoms allows creators and users of code to collaborate more closely to produce higher quality software. Freedom good! Collaboration good! Higher quality good!

When I pointed out that Microsoft had recently made an alliance with JBoss, Russ took that as evidence of his point:

IMHO, there is a HUGE amount of software which Microsoft could beneficially publish as open source without harming their core. They're not our enemies.

I still don't know. If you think your licenses are OSI-compliant, why not submit them? Isn't license simplicity a worthwhile goal, too? Can someone, inside or outside Microsoft, tell me what's so bad about the OSI?

Topic: Microsoft

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

Talkback

5 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • They Know it Will Fail

    Read section F. of the license...

    It states quite clearly you can only use the code to develop for Microsoft platforms.
    Ed_Meyers
  • why not OSI publish like Microsoft licence

    "Isn't license simplicity a worthwhile goal, too?"

    OSI could beneficially publish as Proprietary licence without harming their core.

    Why is it that Microsoft have to follow OSI licence.
    BrutalTruth
  • why not OSI publish like Microsoft licence

    "Isn't license simplicity a worthwhile goal, too?"

    OSI could beneficially publish as Proprietary licence without harming their core.

    Why is it that Microsoft have to follow OSI licence.
    BrutalTruth
  • why the double standards

    "Isn't license simplicity a worthwhile goal, too?"


    Why is it that Microsoft have to follow OSI licence.
    OSI could beneficially publish as Proprietary licence without harming their core.
    BrutalTruth
    • Not the Role of OSI

      The OSI does not certify Proprietary licenses. They publish and certify Open Source licenses.

      The Microsoft license, while sorta of open, does not allow the code to be used to develope programs not for the Microsoft platform. Thus it fails as open.

      Other licenses from Microsoft such as the XML Patent license does not allow the rights to transfer, each person who uses the your product must individually sign the XML Patent license, your XML must fully follow the MS specification or you have no rights, and MS could pull the license at any time - Thus it also fails as open.
      Ed_Meyers