To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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...
How about, "license profileration"?
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.






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.