Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 18:42 UTC, submitted by Rahul
The Microsoft Permissive License, one of two licenses the software maker submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval as open-source licenses in August, is unlikely to be approved in its current form. There have been two principle objections to the license from the open-source community, Michael Tiemann, the president of OSI, told eWEEK in an interview here at the annual Gartner Open Source Summit on Sept. 20. The first objection is that the use of the word 'permissive' in the license title implies an expectation that the license does not meet. The second complaint is that the MS-PL is incompatible with a large number of other open-source licenses, he said.
Thread beginning with comment 273449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-27
Member since:2006-09-01
Why would it be unfair to consider a company's larger strategic position when assessing a particular tactical move?
Microsoft's history demonstrates a certain goal and their strategies support that goal. I think it's perfectly reasonable that in the face of that strategy, the smaller individual, and sometimes seemingly unrelated moves get scrutinized more closely.
And just to ensure I get modded down, here's a political analogy: Can you really say that George W. Bush performed his national guard duty, in the face of all the over whelming evidence, just because one of the single piece of that evidence turned out to be a mistake (even though it was never denied)?
Should we ignore the bigger picture because of a smudge?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-10
Is the OSI blind for hate agsinst Microsoft.
For some time I have read at
http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2007/11677.html
that Eric Raymond plans to prevent, that the MS-licenses wouldn't be OSI-licenses, because he is unhappy with Microsofts OOXML move (which is cpmpletly independent to the licenses - a complete different field).
And now I read this crap.
The first objection is the name of the license. Not the license-text is important. The name is the problem!!!
The second complaint is that the MS-PL is incompatible with a large number of other open-source licenses.
The GPLv2 is nearly with all OpenSource-licenses incompatible.
What is that a reason?
That is a bad decision of the OSI.
And it mostly damaged the good reputation of the OSI itself.