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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-08
How about, "license profileration"?
Member since:2005-07-06
How about, "license profileration"?
That's a different point. While I might agree (even if I think this is lost cause), there's no point in stopping MS-PL while you have tens of others which are less than "rarely used". Plus, you should then start to reconsider them all, if OSI really wants to be taken seriously. And in the list they're not talking about "license proliferation", rather about "stopping the enemy"-like. While Microsoft could live without its license approved, why should you turn OSI into a sidelined committee?
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.
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!
Check better. DiBona went on with arguments like marketing, tactics and so on. And he's been asked by other users why he was going to shift a technical (or legal) discussion into other kind of discussion which was not part of the matter. DiBona essentially wanted this license not be considered because it was from Microsoft, at least until MS stand about other things would have changed. Those things had nothing to do with merit of that license.
If you mean that he pissed off many people on that list, you're right. If you mean that he didn't want this license to be rejected (and even not considered) because it was from Microsoft, read better.
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...