Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:31 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
"In his keynote at OSCON, Microsoft General Manager of Platform Strategy Bill Hilf announced that Microsoft is submitting its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative. This is a huge, long-awaited move. It will be earthshaking for both Microsoft and for the open source community if the licenses are in fact certified as open source licenses. Microsoft has been releasing a lot of software as shared source (nearly 650 projects, according to Bill). If this is suddenly certified as true open source software, it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open source community." In addition, Microsoft has launched a new website where it details its relationship with open source.
Thread beginning with comment 258497
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by fretinator on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:54
in reply to "RE[2]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2005-07-06
If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.
So what does "integrated with" mean? Person B can modify and redistribute for free, but if it is "integrated with", he cannot. What does that mean?
(serious question)
RE[4]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by Almafeta on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:21
in reply to "RE[3]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2007-02-22
So what does "integrated with" mean? Person B can modify and redistribute for free, but if it is "integrated with", he cannot. What does that mean? (serious question)
Person B can distribute what they created. For example, if they created "foo.dll" that replaces Person A's "foo.dll", then they can distribute it for free. They can't redistribute what person A created directly -- unless, of course, person A allows it. An example is a free software extension for a commercial program; they both might be based on some shared MsPL code, but while B may choose to release their program for free, A may choose to sell theirs. It's their choice.
A notable distinction of the MsPL is that it's intended to give freedoms to the enduser, not to give freedoms to the license's owner (Microsoft). The MsPL's requirements are (1) leave attribution intact, (2) accept that there are no guarantees, (3) use the MsPL if you choose to distribute the source code (you are not required to do so), (4) let other users use your patents, and (5) don't bring patent cases against other MsPL users. In everything else, it's up to the enduser what they want to do with the license. No mandatory redistribution, no vaguely worded guidelines about relicensing 'derived works', no forbiddances over use, nothing of that nature. Heck, if you don't choose to release the source code, you don't even have to release it under the same license, as long as you follow the terms of Microsoft's license.
(Between my current position, and my former position as my company's OGL expert, I'm entirely too familiar with license law and looking for double meanings in licenses. Bleagh.)
Edited 2007-07-26 23:22 UTC
Member since:
2007-02-22
How deep does that go? If person A modifies the software and charges a licensing fee which person B pays, who then modifies it further but doesn't charge a fee...
If you are using person A's work, and person A is charging a fee, then you must pay person A's fee to use it.
If you are using person B's work, and person B is not charing a fee, then you can use it free.
If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.