Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 18th Aug 2007 20:13 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The OSI License-Discuss mailing list has been ablaze for the past few days since Microsoft submitted its Permissive License to the OSI for official open source license approval. Jon Rosenberg, source program director for Microsoft, posted, "Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms combined with intellectual property protection."
Thread beginning with comment 264349
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: To be honest...
by ma_d on Sat 18th Aug 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "To be honest..."
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

I really don't see an objective issue with refusing to listen to an almost (I'm being nice) criminal company from the perspective of OSS.

Chris is trying to choose the only winning move: "Not to play." Microsoft is playing games and I believe OSI is small enough, young enough, and run by smart enough people to breaks its own rules and not play this hand.

Objectivity and unbiased opinions are for people who can't learn and abstract, not to mention impossible goals.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: To be honest...
by tyrione on Sun 19th Aug 2007 04:21 in reply to "RE: To be honest..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Convicted of being a Monopoly is an admission the company is criminal.

However, they did have the biggest balls for over a decade by dangling their giant nutsack in the face of the public and getting away with it.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: To be honest...
by MollyC on Sun 19th Aug 2007 04:50 in reply to "RE[2]: To be honest..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Convicted of being a Monopoly is an admission the company is criminal."

You might want to research the difference between "criminal" law and "civil" law before speaking on this topic again, lest you continue to look uneducated.

Oh, and "convicted of being a monopoly" is a meaningless phrase.

Edited 2007-08-19 04:54

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: To be honest...
by BluenoseJake on Sun 19th Aug 2007 18:30 in reply to "RE: To be honest..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I really don't see an objective issue with refusing to listen to an almost (I'm being nice) criminal company from the perspective of OSS."

You're not being nice, you're being discriminatory. IF MS follows the process and the rules, their past behavior is somewhat irrelevant. OSI's job is to verify and certify Open Source licenses. They just can't reject it out of hand, that shows they are not objective, and it undermines efforts to get everyone, including MS to play by the rules. Getting MS to play fair with OSS is a goal I can get behind. That way everyone wins.

"Objectivity and unbiased opinions are for people who can't learn and abstract, not to mention impossible goals."

That's pretty closed minded, and a bit retarded as well. For an organization like OSI, they have to be definition of objectivity, or they are useless. These issues are not abstract, they affect the way thousands of people and organizations do business everyday.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: To be honest...
by ma_d on Sun 19th Aug 2007 19:38 in reply to "RE[2]: To be honest..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The license and the license' owner should both be under investigation. If Microsoft is going to happily give up all ownership and claims to ownership (including trademarks) then we can evaluate just the license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: To be honest...
by Moochman on Sun 19th Aug 2007 20:55 in reply to "RE: To be honest..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Objectivity and unbiased opinions are for people who can't learn and abstract, not to mention impossible goals.

By that logic, people who are able to learn should always form biased opinions. Except that the definition of "biased" means being unable to learn to see things in new ways as new situations present themselves.

Sorry, I just don't buy your twisted argument. Microsoft's past behavior should not be the basis of refusing to review their license request. As other people have noted, just letting them create an open-source license does not immediately mean that thousands of developers are going to flock to it. Now I'm not saying they should approve this license or not, as I myself have not reviewed, it but I am saying that it should at least be looked at carefully before being rejected.

Reply Parent Score: 3