Microsoft aims for open-source certification

Microsoft aims for open-source certification

Summary: Software giant is to submit its shared-source licences to the Open Source Initiative, but expects the OSI to pay for its 'generosity'

TOPICS: Tech Industry

After years of speculation, Microsoft said last week it will submit its "shared-source" software licences to the Open Source Initiative, for approval as fully "open-source" licences.

Ironically, the move comes amid accelerating antagonism of the open-source industry via Microsoft's patent agreements with prominent open-source companies, highlighting the complexity of Microsoft's relationship with collaborative development models and the free-software movement.

Bill Hilf, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, made the announcement in a keynote speech at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (Oscon) in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday. The plans were also detailed by Jon Rosenberg, Microsoft's director of source programs, on Port 25, a website that's part of Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab.

Rosenberg described the move as the culmination of Microsoft's growing engagement with the open-source world, which he said started more than three years ago when Microsoft released Windows Installer XML on SourceForge, an open-source code-hosting site.

"Today, we reached another milestone with the decision to submit our open licences to the Open Source Initiative [OSI] approval process which, if the licences are approved, should give the community additional confidence that the code we're sharing is truly open source," Rosenberg said on the site.

Payback from the OSI
While Microsoft might be making overtures to the open-source mainstream, Rosenberg made it clear that the company expects the OSI to pay Microsoft for its generosity by making structural changes.

As the "flip side" of the licensing announcement, Rosenberg called on the OSI to change its structure to accept members from the IT industry who would be able to exert more control over the organisation's future.

Microsoft is willing to make use of certified open-source licences for its "shared-source" projects, which is a step toward giving the developer community a say in how the company evolves, and the OSI should be willing to do the same for its constituency by becoming a membership organisation, Rosenberg argued.

He said such a move would pose no real danger to the OSI — for example, from members attempting to sabotage the organisation. "Anyone considering an effort to 'vote the organisation into the ground' would surely realise that such heavy handedness would be self-defeating," Rosenberg wrote.

Read this


FAQ: Why you should care about GPLv3

The open-source community has seen an update to the licence that underpins most of its developments. Here's what you need to know about it...

Read more

Rosenberg highlighted the fact that Microsoft hosts more than 175 projects on its CodePlex code-sharing site and that two of its "open licences" are used with more than 500 software projects.

However, such projects are typically relatively obscure, and Microsoft has never suggested it might use open-source licences for core products such as Windows or Office.

Complex relationship
As early as October 2005, Microsoft met with the OSI board to discuss open-source certification for its "shared-source" licences.

The OSI and many prominent open-source industry figures have long encouraged Microsoft to make the move. In 2005, OSI board member Danese Cooper said the OSI "believes that the Open Source Definition can and should be applied equally to any licence with a bearing on source code".

In a blog post on Thursday, Tim O'Reilly, chief executive of O'Reilly Media and an open-source activist, said it would be "earthshaking" for Microsoft and for the software industry if...

Topic: Tech Industry

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ........

    Nothing new here then!

    The article does not mention that users of Linspire are required to pay Microsoft, a charge, which Linspire are initially absorbing. Presumably this is for the unspecified patent infringements.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't American law specifiy that if anyone has a complaint about patent infringement, they are obliged to give details of the infringememt or loose their rights to persue the complaint, rather than demand Mafia style 'Protection'.

    Furthermore, to take a leaf out of the judge's ruling in the Facebook/ConnectU case, show the evidence (for the open source patent transgressions in this case).

    I fear that Microsoft, and their lawyers, are still on the course to embrace, etc., and ultimately to acquire Open Source IP for themselves.
    The Former Moley
  • "shared-source" software licences

    Don't hold your breath on M$ doing the right thing on this. Their record speaks for itself, and they will continue to pursue open source as an enemy to destroy all competition. This is normal for a company that has an inferior product.