Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Your Rights Online

OSI Asks Microsoft to Change the MS-PL 169

Posted by Zonk from the perhaps-actually-make-it-permissive dept.
Xenographic writes "The OSI has identified two significant flaws in the Microsoft Permissive License, and is unlikely to approve it as an OSI license in its current state. Specifically, the OSI is worried about the way the MS-PL is incompatible with so many other OSI-approved licenses and how misleading that makes the term 'permissive' in the license's name. Now the ball is in Microsoft's court and they can choose to amend or withdraw it from consideration. From the article: 'The MPL is also particularly restrictive, and is uniquely incompatible with the maximum number of other open-source licenses, [president of OSI Michael Tiemann] said, noting that in its examination of license proliferation, the OSI had encouraged experimentation with license terms to encourage new ones to be written that were better than what currently existed.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSI Asks Microsoft to Change the MS-PL More

OSI Asks Microsoft to Change the MS-PL

Comments Filter:

  • Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Macthorpe ( 960048 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:15PM (#20700727) Journal

    the OSI is worried about the way the MS-PL is incompatible with so many other OSI-approved licenses
    Like the GPLv3, then?

    (I have karma to burn, apparently)

    • Re:Double standard? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by someone1234 ( 830754 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:17PM (#20700775)
      The MPL is incompatible with the MPL (Mozilla Public License) too.
      And, wonder what happens if it is used as a dual license option with BSD :P

    • Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:44PM (#20701273)
      Apparently, anybody can troll and get karma bonus by using the magic phrase "I have karma to burn".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iamacat ( 583406 )
      GPLv2 itself is incompatible with all licenses existing before it was introduced - typical commercial license, BSD, public domain. Personally I would prefer return to founder's copyright and obligation for the author to release the work in a form conductive to creating derivatives (which would be source code for software, digital negative for photos...) after those 7 years or 14 after getting a renewal for a nominal fee.

      But other than that, I don't see why Microsoft should be held to higher standard than FS

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrsteveman1 ( 1010381 )
        Because Microsoft has some hits in the face coming to it.

        Its like when you steal the teachers chalk......

        Microsoft is getting spanked in public.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ozmanjusri ( 601766 )
        I don't see why Microsoft should be held to higher standard than FSF.

        They're not being held to a higher standard.

        Microsoft's licenses govern the USE of software. FSF (and other FOSS licenses) govern the DISTRIBUTION of software. That detail is what creates the incompatibility and confusion.

    • Re:Double standard? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Crispy Critters ( 226798 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @04:10PM (#20701765)
      Bruce had to work really hard to try to describe Open Source in a way that included both the GPL and the BSDL. The spirit of collaboration that surrounds projects like GNU, Linux, X, and the BSDs owes as much to history as to the license, so it is clear why he had so much trouble trying to include it in the Open Source Definition and why the OSI has even more problems using a subset of the OSD to define an Open Source License.

    • GPLv3 is MORE compatible than v2, not less! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One of the main GOOD parts of the GPLv3 is that it's compatible with the Apache License now and I think some others, too.

      The only new incompatibility I'm aware of is the GPLv2, and only if you hate the "or later" clause.

      There's no good reason not to use it except FUD: I mean, you can word the "or later" clause to say "or any later version of the GPL approved by X" and all you have to do is have X's okay to allow for an upgrade. For Linux, it could be "or any later version of the GPL approved by Linus" and

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trifish ( 826353 )
        One of the main GOOD parts of the GPLv3 is that it's compatible with the Apache License

        Could you be more specific as to how and include all the necessary quotes proving specifically what you claim? (And don't link to others claiming what you claim. Back up what YOU claim -- I don't want to see circular reasoning). Thanks.
        • If you quit being an ass and took five seconds to look for yourself, you'd find this official paper from the FSF [fsf.org], which says (under the section marked "Apache License Compatibility" beginning on p.9):

          We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License,
          version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3.           We are grateful to the Apache
          Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal.
          The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on vary-
          ing literal readings of secti

          • Re:JFGI (Score:4, Interesting)

            by trifish ( 826353 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @05:12PM (#20703337)
            If you quit being an ass and took five seconds to look for yourself

            If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.

            Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.

            That negligible aspect you refer to doesn't make GPL3 anymore compatible than GPL2 was. The key aspects are still not compatible.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        One of the main GOOD parts of the GPLv3 is that it's compatible with the Apache License now and I think some others, too.

        The only new incompatibility I'm aware of is the GPLv2, and only if you hate the "or later" clause.

        Actually, I wonder now... "GPLv2 or later" code is now effectively multiply licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3 (and later revisions of the GPL) - are we going to run into problems where someone adds a block of GPLv3 code to GPLv2 or Later code, thus locking out that block of code from GPLv2-only

        • Adding GPL3 licensed code to GPL code with the or later clause causes the entire program to be licensed under GPL3 (since GPL3 is not directly compatible with GPL2).

          That's why people have gone to so much effort to delete the or later clause.

  • Same question as always. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:16PM (#20700735)
    Why isn't there a chart of the various licenses ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive?

    That way it would be easy to show where a new license fit in and whether it was actually needed or whether it duplicated an existing one.

    It would also show gaps where licenses do not exist right now.

    And best of all, it would allow you to draw a line and say "anything below this line is compatible with the GPLv2 (or v3)".

    As the various laws change, the chart would have to be updated. But it would solve this issue with Microsoft once and for all.

    • ..... But it would solve this issue with Microsoft once and for all.
      My first impression was thinking "what the fsck is that guy thinking. That quickly turned into, "wonder if he'll share some of what he's smoking... "

      TGIFF

    • Re:Same question as always. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mmcuh ( 1088773 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:22PM (#20700863)
      Because you can't say that a given license is either more or less permissive than any other. It's not a total order. Take GPLv2 and GPLv3 for example. If either of them were strictly more permissive, you would be able to relicense from one to the other. But you can't since the GPLv3 prohibits you from using patents to close off the code, and GPLv2 prohibits you from adding any new probihitions. Or take the XFree86 license and GPLv[2-3]. The XFree86 license requires attribution to a greater extent than the GPL, while GPL requires other things that the XFree86 license does not. Neither can be said to be "more permissive", because they require and allow different things.

      • Re:Same question as always. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:54PM (#20701429) Homepage Journal
        But, a chart CAN be built. Not a spreadsheet chart, per se, but a view that is maybe hexagonal or octagonal in shape with colors (or for the color-perception-impaired, dotted/dashed/hatched lines) showing the increasing and decreasing danger zones are relative to the permissiveness intended by the license drafter, or show compatible licenses for those wanting boilerplate.

        Heck, it could even be build in software, say in some CRM type of tool, where the user picks the language as it suits them, then the software uses an algorithm to display dubiousness, hostility, friendliness, and overlapping/"underlapping" or "conformal" lines of compatibility.

        A scoring system could be built where the permissiveness ranks higher in bar and in some pleasing color and hostility ranks lower in bar and in some mean, rage or nausea-inducing color (red?).

        Sample licenses and unctuous or uncouth or hostile licenses would be copied, verbatim, and snippets or whole paragraphs presented on screen to help TEACH software developers and license writers HOW TO THINK about not just their own coding or legalese-brandishing prowess, but to THINK about their target audience and community-building abilities.

        If people can build "How to patent it yourself" and "Will Kits" in software, then some enterprising GEEK had better get on the ball and keep my idea from being patented by some profiteer who is unlikely to donate profits back to the community.

        GOOGLE, are you listening? You wanna write one yourself, or donate money to a team that will do it? Your search engine alone could shortcut a lot of the work just by your inputting known, issued licenses and "agreements", matched with legal case history, pending cases, and settled cases, as well as whatever became cross-licensing deals when big companies clashed with each other, as well as whatever became of little guys run over by roughshod, steamrolling big companies.

        Companies such as microsoft automatically can be initially regarded as hostile until their licenses are TRULY permissive. Not permissive in microsoft-speak, but in preponderance of licenses issued by OSI and the reception/perception of such licenses BY the end-users who actually read them and live happily with them, not live with them as a cost of doing businesses and a fear of avoiding courts or jail time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrCopilot ( 871878 )
      Why isn't there a chart of the various licenses ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive?

      You mean like this

      http://www.petefreitag.com/item/533.cfm [petefreitag.com]

      or http://pgl.yoyo.org/lqr/ [yoyo.org]

      or http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/opensource/ [croftsoft.com]

      or http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000833.html [codinghorror.com]

      All found with a very cursory Search on Google. If these are not enough you could always open a little program called OpenOffice and create one. Given how many of the above are crosslinked, You could fi

  • Microsoft's license might not be compatible with other open source projects? Say it isn't so Bill, say it isn't so!

  • I'm shocked (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:23PM (#20700905)
    Something from Microsoft is "uniquely incompatible"?

  • what's incompatible? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @03:34PM (#20701083) Homepage
    Reading the license, it looks like a pretty ordinary, simple, GPL-ish license. IANAL, and I'm sure the OSI knows what they're talking about when it says it's incompatible with lots of other OSI-approved licenses, but after reading the article and the license, I'm still completely in the dark about why it's so incompatible.
    • Reading the license, it looks like a pretty ordinary, simple, GPL-ish license. ... I'm still completely in the dark about why it's so incompatible.

      Same here.

      But in legal issues the devil is in the details.

      I'd like to see an explanation from OSI of what the (alleged) incompatibilities are.

    • Re:what's incompatible? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrCopilot ( 871878 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @04:02PM (#20701575) Homepage Journal
      I'm still completely in the dark about why it's so incompatible.

      The snag is right here.

      This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

      This is where the incompatible part is. GPL and other govern only distribution not usage. Here is relevant part of GPL

      This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

      Now that is what I call Permissive. MS-PL is not a license it is a EULA. It is not permissive.

      Other than that, I am actually surprised at how Open this "License" is. Baby Steps to open source. I particularly like this bit, which I thought I'd never see from MS.

      (B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

      Under Conditions and Limitations:
      (B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

      Great First Draft. Tiny bit of tweaking and I would not shy away from code covered under this license.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by chromatic ( 9471 )

        Great First Draft.

        The patent clause is almost toothless. Apache 2's patent clause terminates all patent rights under the license to anyone who files a patent infringement claim against the licensed project. The MS-PL protects Microsoft and other big contributors who have patents but does nothing to establish a patent commons around the work to protect smaller contributors.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MrCopilot ( 871878 )
          The MS-PL protects Microsoft and other big contributors who have patents but does nothing to establish a patent commons around the work to protect smaller contributors.

          Wow, never, ever, ever, in a million years, thought I would be on Slashdot actually defending a MS license,

          (B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make,

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by recoiledsnake ( 879048 )
        That is almost the only place in the license which talks about usage of the software. Apart from that, can you point out where it applies to a end user(except for the waiver of express guarantees)? The rest of the license talks about distribution. Also, GPL applies to end users. From the GPL

        in no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who modifies and/or conveys the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages, including an

        • Also, GPL applies to end users.

          As you pointed out only as it relates to liability. Not relating to permission to USE.

          • Also, GPL applies to end users.

            As you pointed out only as it relates to liability. Not relating to permission to USE.

            I don't understand you. My reading of that clause in the GPL indicates that you can't use the program unless you agree not to hold the author liable for the harm it may cause. And that is what the MS-PL seems to be saying. Let me rephrase the question. How do the MS-PL and GPL differ in the rights of the end user? If you see any difference please post in a detailed manner instead of concise legalese.

      • Re:what's incompatible? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by trifish ( 826353 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @05:31PM (#20703835)
        GPL and other govern only distribution not usage. Here is relevant part of GPL

        This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

        As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MrCopilot ( 871878 )
          As a developer, I wouldn't touch a license that doesn't cover use. The disclaimers of warranties and limitation of liablities are an essential part of Free software. The GPL fails to bind the user to agree to the disclaimers and limitations and thus makes the developers and distributors subject to liabilities (because these things are implied by default under applicable laws).

          That is a ridiculous claim. Liability would be subject to license terms. Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL aut

          • In other words, it's a EULA ?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by MrCopilot ( 871878 )
              In other words, it's a EULA ?

              Pay attention please. End User License Agreement MS is a EULA period. It covers usage how you use it.

              GPL is a License. General Public License It covers copyright licensing. Copyright is for distribution, you know, like copy...rights.

              The distinction is purposeful. I'm not drawing it, they are. It says so as the first sentence of the MS-PL, you think its unimportant?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by trifish ( 826353 )
            Liability would be subject to license terms.

            Wrong. The GPL3 expressly and explicitly states (yes, read it) that mere users do NOT have to accept the license (only distributors do). Therefore, mere users can ignore the entire license and are NOT legally bound by it.

            Under no circumstances would you be able to sue a GPL author based on the assumption that you did not agree to the terms of the licence under which it was distributed.

            As I wrote, you would be able to sue them based on IMPLIED warranties and liabil

            • As I wrote, you would be able to sue them based on IMPLIED warranties and liabilities under applicable laws. Fool.

              False, because you've been *notified* that the implied warranties and liabilities had been disclaimed. That's how all disclaimers work. Agreeing to the license has nothing to do with it.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by trifish ( 826353 )
                False, because you've been *notified* that the implied warranties and liabilities had been disclaimed.

                I have to laugh. How are you going to prove that the user was notified? He may have missed the notice. Unless you create a click-wrap agreement where the user is bound by the terms of the agreement (EULA) you can't enforce your notices. Implied warranties apply under applicable law in that case.
        • Aren't your concerns covered by these parts of the GNU GPL?

          For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software.

          And also...

          15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
          THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMP

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by trifish ( 826353 )
            Aren't your concerns covered by these parts of the GNU GPL?

            No. Read the whole GPL. You'll find provisions stating that a mere user does not have to accept and agree to the license (so a mere user isn't bound by the license and can ignore Sections 15 and 16). Only distributors are bound by the license so only they need to read the license.

        • The "no warrantee" text in the GPL is a notice, not a license term.

          Note how the standard GPL copyright statement looks: THIS PROGAM HAS NO WARANTEE (oh, and it's copyrighted and licenced under the GPL).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by trifish ( 826353 )
            The "no warrantee" text in the GPL is a notice, not a license term.

            Lame attempt. Those are SECTIONS of the license. Not a Preamble, not a notice. They are terms, which you need to accept. And as for "notices" attached somewhere: If the user doesn't willignly agree to them, he is not legally bound by them. Check the case law on click-wrap licenses.

            • And as for "notices" attached somewhere: If the user doesn't willignly agree to them, he is not legally bound by them. Check the case law on click-wrap licenses.

              You go check the case law on disclaimers of warantee.

      • "MS-PL is not a license it is a EULA."

        What does the "L" in EULA stand for?

        What you raise appears to be a subtle philosophical point with no obvious consequences.

        The starting point is different. The GPL adds to the rights that you have under copyright law. It is purely permission to do things that you otherwise could not legally do. A EULA starts with the assumption that copyright holders should be able to control the use of the software. But that difference doesn't appear to affect the operation of t

        • Amazing how you make my point for me. What you raise appears to be a subtle philosophical point with no obvious consequences.

          The starting point is different. The GPL adds to the rights that you have under copyright law. It is purely permission to do things that you otherwise could not legally do. A EULA starts with the assumption that copyright holders should be able to control the use of the software.

          Thanks, I thought I was gonna have to type it.

          But that difference doesn't appear to affect the ope

    • "GPL-ish license"

      Read it again. The keystone of the GPL is making source available. There is no guarantee of source availability with the MS-PL. It may be ordinary and simple, but it is not reomotely "GPL-ish."

      • Read it again. The keystone of the GPL is making source available. There is no guarantee of source availability with the MS-PL. It may be ordinary and simple, but it is not reomotely "GPL-ish."

        Did you even read the license?

        If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

        • I don't understand. The GPL requires that the source code of distributed binaries must be available (with multiple options depending on the details). No part of the MS-PL requires that. The portion that you quoted only refers to the licensing of distributed code. How is that related?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by recoiledsnake ( 879048 )

            Sorry. I got confused between the two licenses they submitted to the OSI. The other is the Microsoft Community License [microsoft.com].

            This one does have a similar requirement to the one in the GPL that you mentioned.

            (A) Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this license, which license will govern that file. You may license other files that are entirely your own work and do not contain code from the software under any terms you choose.

            So, the MS-PL is like the BSDL and the MCL is like the GPL. The OP does not mention MS-PL. Maybe he was talking about the MCL?

            Also, why is the OSI concerned about the "Permissive" in MS-PL's name when the license reads almost like the BSDL ?

            • So, the MS-PL is like the BSDL and the MCL is like the GPL.

              That's the oversimplification that the Microsoft PR department would like you to accept.

              More accurately, the MCL sounds to be like the MPL or CDDL, and the MS-PL sounds like the BSD Protection License [ox.ac.uk]. The only effect that a license like that has is to unnessiarily (and for no advantage to the open source community) prevent code reuse - which is one of the reasons why the BSDPL isn't on anyone's approved license list. Basically, MS recreated a lic

  • What does this mean? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamesl ( 106902 ) on Friday September 21, 2007 @04:24PM (#20702133)
    The MPL ... is uniquely incompatible with the maximum number of other open-source licenses.
    The maximum number would be all of them.
    • It means the MPL is incompatible with a greater number of OSI-approved licenses than any other OSI-approved license.

      SIGHUP your parser. :)

  • Get the facts! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by miquels ( 37972 )
    From the article:

    Bill Hilf, general manager of platform strategy for Microsoft, based in Redmond, Wash. :

    "Look at it from my perspective. If I told customers we were working with open source and the OSI and they went to opensource.org and saw all the anti-Microsoft messages, what would they think? It just didn't make any sense".

    Yeah. I think this guy should get the facts. http://www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
  • There already is an MPL, the Mozilla Public License. It's frequently referred to by that acronym. This one should be abbreviated MSPL

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close