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 273457
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by MollyC on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 23:43
in reply to "RE[2]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2006-07-04
RE[4]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by Lettherebemorelight on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 06:07
in reply to "RE[3]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2005-07-11
The name "General Public License" would seem to suggest "Public Domain", which GPL definitely is not. 
What straw man are you attacking? Not that I claim to be an expert on the GPL, but I think it's terms do a decent job of keeping control of code and other resources in the public domain.
Just what do you think public domain means anyway?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.