A Microsoft Shared Source license was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for official approval as an open-source license - but it wasn't Microsoft who submitted it. "Someone submitted the Microsoft Community License, one of our Shared Source licenses, to the OSI without our knowledge or approval, but the OSI contacted us and asked if we wanted them to proceed with that," said Bill Hilf, Microsoft's director for platform technology strategy. "We told them that we did not want to be reactive and needed time to think about it."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
I feel just the opposite. It was not in Cowan's best interest to submit this and to me this put a tarnish on OSS's reputation. Anyone else with an open/shared license will now have to fear that their own licenses will be submitted by others instead of going through the proper channels at the company.
When Microsoft wants to submit the license to the OSI they will do it. I'm sure they will revise the license a little bit before then. If Cowan wants to encourage Microsoft then there are better means to do it. He can start a rally or a petition or a website and spread the word that way. Eventually Microsoft will take notice.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""I feel just the opposite. It was not in Cowan's best interest to submit this and to me this put a tarnish on OSS's reputation. Anyone else with an open/shared license will now have to fear that their own licenses will be submitted by others instead of going through the proper channels at the company."""
Nothing in the above paragraph makes sense. Could you clarify, please?
1. Why are you concerned with Cowan's best interest?
2. How can one person submitting a license to the OSI for possible approval tarish the reputation of a collection of software?
3. Why should anyone have anything to fear as a consequence of OSI contacting Microsoft to inquire as to their wishes?
Member since:
2005-07-24
I've seen the same reaction to this story on other sites, and it puzzles me. Cowan was not claiming to represent Microsoft. It sounds like the license in question just might qualify for approval. The reason given by Cowan: that MS should be encouraged when they take a step in the right direction, seems reasonable.
I agree that the right thing for the OSI to do was to contact MS for approval. I also agree that we don't need yet another OSS license.
But it hardly seems a "dumb stunt" to me.