"Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License. The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2006-11-19
They've already licensed core parts of Silverlight and many other projects with their (now) open source licenses.
This was not just for show. For example mono project was able to make a port (Moonlight) in a short time, and now it will be supported by Microsoft when mature enough (some parts like VC1 codec are problem).
This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated.
Edited 2007-10-16 21:08
Member since:2006-05-26
No license leads to software built with either good or bad quality: it only sets out the license for its use. The best software could be completely closed-source or open-source and completely free to outside review, and the worst software can also have exactly the same licensing: it isn't the license that determines the quality of the software, but rather the experience, knowledge and dedication of the developers and whomever manages the project and sets the goals.
Member since:2005-12-15
I think this is very true. Some of the worst software I've seen has come under an open source license. There are plenty of open source software examples which have horrible user interfaces, disjointed workflow and barely usable functionality. The same can be said for commercial software as well.
I don't think the license determines the quality of the software in any significant way.
Member since:
2006-03-23
Congratulations to Microsoft for taking the first step towards a better way of building software.