Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdibona@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:48:05 -0700

I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe
even a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that
Microsoft will:

a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Source
b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
to deter the use of open source software?

If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts? That of a company
who has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend
a communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as
anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness?

Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be
approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses
and reduce license proliferation? I'm asked this for all recent
license-submitters and you are no different :-)

Chris

On 8/13/07, Chuck Swiger <chuck@codefab.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >> Really?  Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL with
> >> others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute
> >> the
> >> resulting binary together with the various source files, preserving
> >> their original licensing?
> >
> > You can if you keep them in separate files.  But this is less
> > compatible
> > than e.g. BSD, which allows you to include BSD code in a file under
> > essentially any license as long as the BSD license notice remains
> > intact.
>
> True.  You've made a set of points in partial reply to me and also to
> Donovin which are well taken, so I won't reply to each individually,
> but I do wish to acknowledge that I agree with your position in
> them.  :-)
>
> --
> -Chuck
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com