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 258552
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[7]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by Valhalla on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:14
in reply to "RE[6]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2006-01-24
the definition of end user I was implying was the one that recieves the actual resulting program, not the one that uses MsPL licenced source code to create a program.
as such the end user (in this context) is not guaranteed the right to alter the program to work according to his needs since the distributor is not bound to release the source code to his program.
it is true that someone grabbing a bunch of MsPL licenced code and then releasing his own propriety program containing MsPL licenced code is also an end user, just not in the same context.
so again, it strikes me as a BSD-style licence with a few added clauses.
Member since:
2007-02-22
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.
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