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 258530
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[5]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by Valhalla on Fri 27th Jul 2007 00:23
in reply to "RE[4]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
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.
RE[6]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Jul 2007 00:51
in reply to "RE[5]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2007-02-22
obviously MsPL gives freedoms to the distributor, not the end user.
You seem to be confusing 'distributor' and 'end user'.
Distributor -- creates software, licenses it under MsPL.
End user -- recieves software, decides what to do with it once it's been licensed to them.
If it was giving freedoms to the distributor, the end user would be required to give license of all their creations back to the distributor.
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.
If the distributor has chosen not to distribute their creations, then it is obviously not licensed under the MsPL anyways. And if the distributor has distributed their source code under the MsPL, then they have granted the permission to let them alter the program -- section 2 of the MsPL.
Edited 2007-07-27 00:51 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-22
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