Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft. Watch out OSI.

Tim Smith <reply_in_gr....RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Monday, July 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643
>
>> [quote]
>> MichaelTiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source
>> Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of
>> Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source
>> code to running only on the Windows operating system
>> would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source
>> licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must
>> be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.
>
>> "I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that
>> would not fly because that would restrict the field of use,"
>> said Tiemann an interview late Friday.

I plonked you in:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1727555553f797ec

for your foolish word games. However, since I spotted your reply in
Google, hence is my reply in Google Groups.

The article quoted in the Groklaw article is:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=
viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028318&intsrc=news_ts_head

or http://tinyurl.com/2zb95p

(further quotes by Mr. Tiemann:)

[quote]
Tiemann, who is also CTO of Linux distributor and Microsoft rival Red
Hat Inc., said the OSI is not singling out Microsoft.

"Microsoft will not be getting special treatment -- good or bad," he
said. "They will get the same treatment we give Sun, IBM, SimpleText,
or individuals that submit licenses -- fully transparent discussion
that involves the community."
[/quote]

(Please note in the next quote, the words "Microsoft's oft-
antagonistic history ...." are that of the reporter.)

[Page 2 quote]
Tiemann emphasized repeatedly that the OSI will run the process so
that all discussion about the merits of Microsoft's submission will be
restricted to the licenses themselves, not Microsoft's oft-
antagonistic history with open-source or speculation about its
intentions.

"If people are judging Microsoft the company, I'll step in and say
this is not an appropriate question," he said.
[/Page 2 quote]

>> Why would this need to be said? What nerve Microsoft has
>> to even dream of trying for such a restriction. A license
>> that restricts use to only the
>
> Since Microsoft has not yet submitted its licenses, and has
> not stated which will be submitted, all that follows after
> the Tiemann quote is baseless speculation.

Except that PJ's informal legal discussion was based on observations
of Microsoft's actions to alter the definition of Open Source, example
link of:

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/634

[quote]
I fear that the meaning of the phrase "open source" is already
beginning to degrade.

First, Microsoft introduces Shared Source, a program that lets some
customers view (not modify) some code. And they start calling site
licensing "open license". Does it sound confusingly like "open
source"? I think that's the point.
[/quote]

She further stated in her paragraph:

[quote]
Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I have always seen the need
for both, and I hope OSI has the vision to see what needs to happen
next.
[/quote]

The author clarified her observations and concerns, so I do not see
how you can conclude her statements are baseless. The last sentence
of her statement above that you conveniently snipped prior to you
statement is clear on that.

> Two of the five licenses meet all of the criteria for open
> source at OSI, and also meet the criteria for free software
> licenses given by the FSF.

OSI, not FSF will be doing the evaluation. It will be evaluated to
OSI standards.

> The article they got the Tiemann quote from very clearly
> states that it isn't know what licenses will be submitted, so
> it's hard to see how the author overlooked that.

I do not see how you can conclude the author overlooked something, see
my comments above.

> (The article also gets the Ruby stuff very wrong, most likely
> for the reason stated in the article: the author is not a
> programmer).

Article states,

[quote]
Let's look at the license again, in the Conditions and Limitations
section:

(D) 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.
[/quote]

The author brings up questions regarding licensing Conditions and
Limitations section verbage. It is a discussion on legal stuff, not
technical issues on coding.

Therefore, I do not see how you can conclude that because the author
is not a software writer, is wrong.

--
HPT