Star Microsoft To Submit Shared Source Licenses to OSI
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:31 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Microsoft "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.
E-mail Print r 0   68 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/e5c
Thread beginning with comment 258508
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fretinator
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)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

Almafeta 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

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Almafeta wrote:
-" A notable distinction of the MsPL is that it's intended to give freedoms to the enduser,"

no, obviously MsPL gives freedoms to the distributor, not the end user. the distributor may choose not to include the source code which denies the end user the chance to alter the program to suit his needs. this seems like a BSD-style licence with added patent and licence compliance clause for binary or object code distribution.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

Read more of this thread... >