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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-09-17
I am amazed at how someone (archiesteel) can be so blind by their hate that they would go to any length to defend everyone who is against the one they hate ( Microsoft).
Archiesteel really today you make me speechless.
The two reason sought by OSI are
1. Name
2. Incompatibility
If you take these two reasons then GPL has a name which it doesn't stand for. Public license, hell no it is a strong copyright license. Not even close to public domain licenses.
GPL is also incompatible with many other licenses so is CDDL etc etc.
Please if you really want to defend OSI then defend with some integrity and honesty instead of being driven just by blind hate (or strong bias).
Edited 2007-09-23 08:00
Member since:2005-07-02
Denounce Microsoft's strategies, and you are branded a "hater". That's an ad hominem attack, i.e. a logical fallacy.
The rest of your arguments fail as follow:
"Public" doesn't equal "Public Domain". The GPL is, in fact, Public. *Anyone* can use it, as long as they follow the rules. Since it is open to all, it is correct - and not misleading - to say that it is a Public license. There is thus no confusion in the usage of the term, and other licenses have used it (such as the MPL and the QPL).
The MS license, however, is not permissive when compared to other permissive licenses, such as the BSD license. Therefore there is confusion.
In fact, both the GPL and the CDDL are compatible with many other licenses. The problem seems to be that the MSPL is much less compatible than these licenses - at least according to the OSI.
I am driven by neither, though you personally seem to have a strong bias towards MS, as well as a great loyalty to that company.
Tell me, since you seem so certain that the OSI is not credible, why should MS even bother trying to get their approval? Careful, arguing that position that might require some dangerous leaps of logic...
Member since:
2005-07-02
I don't, however since they are the body MS submitted their license too, I imagine they know a lot more about licenses than you and I. Of course, I expect you to defend MS (or, more precisely, attack those who gets in their way), since that is what you always do.
Unless one simply parrots the MS party line, one must assume that OSI know what they are talking about. I mean, either they have credibility, or they don't: if MS came to them, then it must think that they have credibility. If MS thinks they have credibility, then they must take their objections into consideration, if any. Otherwise, why even bother submitting the licences in the first place?
Oh, and by the way, I think it's safe to say that the objections (apart from the misleading name) have to do with the patent provisions.