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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
These are two shitty arguments, as far as I'm concerned.
The first argument at least has some logic behind it, and even though I don't find it a rather good argument, a point does get made. It is preferable if a license's name corresponds to its content - but is that really that big of a deal? I mean, are 'GPL' and 'MIT License' descriptive?
The second argument is where they get really overboard. Incompatible? What? As if the GPL is compatible! Compatibility is a two-way street in my book, and in that respect, the GPL is anything but compatible.
Weird arguments.
Member since:2005-07-24
Thom,
I really do see some merit in the first argument. Where as GPL and MIT are not really descriptive, those names are not trying to be. The use of the adjective "permissive" in the name of Microsoft's license is likely *intended* to cause confusion. In the same way that OOXML (Office Open XML) was intended to be confused with Open Office's XML format.
It may be too late for the OSI to fight license proliferation without being hypocritical. But I believe it is right for them to refuse to participate in a plot to interject further confusion into the OSS license landscape intentionally.
That said, their second argument is indeed a big, flying, turd.
Member since:2005-07-06
The second argument is where they get really overboard. Incompatible? What?
Not really. License proliferation is a big concern, and the OSI should have been reigning this in years ago. The Computer Associates license that is OSI approved is just one amongst a few licenses that should simply be struck off. It hasn't just appeared out of nowhere with these Microsoft licenses.
Incompatible licenses build walls between open source communities, and doesn't break them down. Quite frankly, I don't think the OSI should be encouraging wall building.
I also believe that the OSI should just state what is on peoples' minds. They are under no obligation to simply waltz in and approve new, incompatible and pointless licenses developed by a company who doesn't have a track record with the OSI, isn't sociable and can't get along with its peers, and hasn't helped the open source movement that the OSI has tried to help build either - quite the opposite, in fact. Many people seem to believe there is some sort of conflict there or something. There isn't. The OSI owes Microsoft nothing. It is up to Microsoft to prove themselves.
As if the GPL is compatible! Compatibility is a two-way street in my book, and in that respect, the GPL is anything but compatible.
People are actually using the GPL.
Hopefully, all this will make the OSI function better as an open source organisation, and get companies, not just Microsoft, to prove their open source credentials first.
Member since:2007-02-17
The GPL is by far the most common Open Source license.
As far as compatibility with other open source licenses goes, contrary to your assertion the GPL is quite middle-of-the-road.
Another question raised was:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses
http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
The GPL is compatible with a vast range of open source software projects ... the overwhelming majority in fact.
I'm not sure, but I had heard that the same could not be said of the MS-PL. I must admit that in reading the MS-PL I can't actually determine what any incompatibility might be.
Edited 2007-09-23 00:38
Member since:2007-02-17
Bear in mind that this is purely because of the intent of the "more permissively licensed project".
That is what I never understood about recent whining from BSD-licensed projects. Apparently it is perfectly fine from BSD point of view for a commercial company to take BSD-licensed code and make it closed-source, and give nothing back, but it is not OK for a GPL project to do something more open than that?
Why do BSD-license proponents feel that is OK for commercial exploitation of their work, without any giving back, but it is apparently not OK for any attempt to ensure through licensing that the code remains forever open?
There is something decidedly suspicious about this position. There is seemingly an orchestrated pseudo-astroturfing campaign here ... the thrust of which seems to be to come up with anything, anything at all no matter how bogus, to try to paint in a bad light any attempt to preserve open-ness of code in an on-going sense.
It is almost as if there is a huge push to undermine anything that does not allow open source code projects from being taken up as a closed source program at some time in the future.
I wonder who could possibly be behind such a campaign?
Member since:2006-01-02
Are you implying that TdR is somehow acting in favor of Microsoft? That's an amusing supposition, but doesn't pass the sniff test. Theo also complains when companies use OpenBSD and don't contribute back, so it's not like he's one-sided here. The reason it's worse for the GPL is twofold: first, companies don't like bad publicity, so they probably quietly deal with the issue if he ever raises it; second, as open-source licenses, GPL and BSD are "brothers." They are both part of the broader Open Source community, so it seems like a greater betrayal of the spirit of the whole Enterprise for one side to take from the other without giving back. You almost expect betrayal from a stranger, but it hurts when it comes from family.
Member since:2005-07-02
Ahem...this is about an *OSI* decision, not a FSF one. If the OSI rejects Microsoft's license on the ground that they are not compatible enough, that has nothing to do with the FSF. The two organization are separate and - if I recall correctly - far from agreeing on philosophical matter.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
this is about an *OSI* decision,
"""
Of course. I referenced the FSF since it is the organization which trumpets the GPL's wide ranging "compatibility". I didn't really want to imply that OSI did that, because I'm not sure that they do. At any rate, no matter who does or does not say it, the GPL's "compatibility" is very one sided. In fact, I think it's probably more accurate to consider the GPL *incompatible* with most every other license. To me, "compatibility" implies a two way flow of code.
Member since:
2005-07-24
The use of the word permissive in the license name is questionable, indeed. I can go with that.
But challenging the license on grounds of it being incompatible with too many other OSS licenses? Say what? Let's keep firmly in mind what the FSF means when they employ the euphemism "license compatibility" with respect to the GPL. They mean that a GPL project may freely take from a more permissively licensed project. But the permissively licensed project does not get anything back in return. No consideration of reciprocation is ever given.
The GPL is my favorite license, generally speaking, despite its warts and the PITA it can sometimes be. Despite the roadblocks it creates to true collaboration between differently licensed projects. But let's not forget that viewed from the standpoint of projects licensed under something other than GPL, the GPL is incompatible with the vast majority of OSS licenses.
IF OSI wants to exclude Mircrosoft's license on those grounds, they need to reevaluate the GPLv2 and GPLv3 as well.
Edited 2007-09-22 19:20