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 264354
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: To be honest...
by Beta on Sat 18th Aug 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To be honest..."
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

“If MS-PL is an open-source license, just state that, list and shut up.”

The whole point of the list is for them to discuss the proposal, in which, they are defining, is it an open-source licence. It’s funny how these things work, I know, it can tax the dumbest of people.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

RE[4]: To be honest...
by TBPrince on Sun 19th Aug 2007 00:29 in reply to "RE[3]: To be honest..."
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

The whole point of the list is for them to discuss the proposal, in which, they are defining, is it an open-source licence. It’s funny how these things work, I know, it can tax the dumbest of people.

Reason why we're buzzing about this is because OSI list is clearly revealing many people stating MS-PL should be rejected because... it's by Microsoft. If it was discussion on legal-basis only, we wouldn't be chatting about it. As MollyC stated, this would be a political reason, not based on merit.

And yes, it's always wise to read the article we're talking about before starting to type. I know not all of us could be wise... but...

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[5]: To be honest...
by ubit on Sun 19th Aug 2007 00:52 in reply to "RE[4]: To be honest..."
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

Reason why we're buzzing about this is because OSI list is clearly revealing many people stating MS-PL should be rejected because... it's by Microsoft. If it was discussion on legal-basis only, we wouldn't be chatting about it. As MollyC stated, this would be a political reason, not based on merit.


How about, "license profileration"?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[5]: To be honest...
by Beta on Sun 19th Aug 2007 10:42 in reply to "RE[4]: To be honest..."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

That’s funny, I read the article, and the newsgroup too!
Their discussion is never purely about legal matters.

How many people said it should be rejected because it is by Microsoft?
None? You’re right!

DiBona flagged some issues he wanted them to discuss, some OSI members suggested they not encourage that kinda thing, Hilf responded with “Google is nasty“ (yeah, I can paraphrase badly too ;) ) and yet, still, no one said “reject it because Microsoft made it”.

You need to remember to not get mixed up in the political reasons.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5