Open Source Weblog

The Groklaw article is just an example. Here’s another: “This will definitely corrupt the meaning and value of ‘Open Source’ (if it passes).”

Here’s a thing: if the Ms-PL is approved by the OSI then not only does it become an approved open source license, but it has been an open source license ever since it was introduced in October 2005.

The fact that Microsoft is behind the license does not impact its “open sourceness” - it is either a license fit for approval by the Open Source Initiative or it is not.

The only grey area that could arise would be tne theoretical situation I suggested last week - that a Microsoft license meets all the criteria of the OSD but is rejected on the grounds that it is a redundant license (i.e. too similar to an existing OSI-approved license).

In this example the license would not be OSI-approved, but would it be open source? If Microsoft were claiming it to be so, then you could complain about ‘corrupting the meaning of open source’. As long as it is playing by the rules, it would be unfair to do so.

Of course it all depends on what Microsoft’s intentions are, and it is understandable that some people are doubtful given the company’s track record. Before you make up your mind it is perhaps worth listening to what Bill Hilf had to actually say on the subject.

His OSCON presentation is here (scroll down) but in the meantime here is the relevant quote:

“One of the main questions I’ve heard in the last three years I’ve been doing this is ‘why don’t you have these as part of an OSI-approved license’. And so I’m very happy to say today we are. Today we are submitting them; we are working with the OSI right now to get them in to the approval process. It’s an important step for us.”

It is also worth noting that Microsoft is taking a risk in seeking OSI approval. If it fails, the license (s) involved will forever be known as the one (s) that failed to be approved as open source.

As mentioned, at least Microsoft is playing by the OSI’s rules to ascertain whether its licenses are up to the test. Microsoft doesn’t *have* to get the OSI’s permission to call its licenses ‘open source’. Should it not be applauded for playing by the rules, rather than taking matters into its own hands?

As OSI president, Michael Tiemann has said, “Microsoft will not be getting special treatment - good or bad. They will get the same treatment we give Sun, IBM, SimpleText, or individuals that submit licenses - fully transparent discussion that involves the community... If people are judging Microsoft the company, I'll step in and say this is not an appropriate question.”

I read somewhere (I forget where right now) that a good test as to whether Google is keeping up its “do no evil” policy is to replace the company name in an announcement with “Microsoft” and gauge your reaction based on that.

Maybe the same could be applied to Microsoft’s announcements with regards to open source. What would the reaction be if Google was seeking OSI-approval? With many Microsoft pronouncements about open source the reaction will be the same, but just sometimes it might make a difference.