< Back to Blogs
OSI Submission Update by jonrosenberg on August 10, 2007 11:45AM

Just a brief update to my OSCON blog post.  Today we started the ball rolling on the submission of our Shared Source licenses to the OSI approval process.  We are submitting two licenses, the Microsoft Permissive License (MS-PL) and Microsoft Community License (MS-CL).  Thank you to both Russ Nelson and Michael Tiemann for the guidance and informed opinions as we worked through this process.

The first step in the submission process was to post the licenses in HTML format on a web site.  We’ve done that and you can see them here.   We’ve also provided the license approval committee with our analysis of how these new submissions contribute to the body of OSI approved licenses.  In addition we’ve sent an e-mail to the license-discuss alias, describing the submission.

We look forward to some lively discussion on license-discuss over the next week.  After that, I personally look forward to two weeks of vacation, during which time any activity involving a computer will be considered by my family to be a serious infringement of vacation terms.  I will be picking up the discussion thread again after Labor Day and look forward to continuing the journey. 

Comments RSS
  1. posted at 12:44PM 08/13/2007
  2. Enjoy your holiday! But, before you head off into the wild blue yonder, might I make a suggestion as to some of the wording in the Microsoft Community License? Most people in the FOSs communities will read this: "(E) 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." and read it with the understanding that this: "(A) Copyright 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 copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create." governs this: "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." Or in other words, it is not only reciprocal, but it extends all the same rights to the recipient. And that is a good thing in itself; the GPL has made its contribution based on the extension of all the same rights to all contributors - when you read books like "rebel code", the impression given is that gcc almost singlehandedly rescued the high-powered embedded real-time market from obscurity. So you might want to make it more obvious that that is the preferred understanding; because otherwise we'll have a lot of people (lawyers, etc) arguing that it can't possibly mean that because it's less than obvious, and so on and so forth .... Eg: "complies" in section 3(A) means "to grant to any further recipient all the rights extended to the recipient in section 2(A)", thus making it explicitly and functionally equivalent to the GPL's grant of sublicensing. And so, might I make a suggest as to the first project you release under the Microsoft Community License? Rotor. It is C# after all, and Microsoft is quite rightly proud of it, but Microsoft has no representation of its own C# compiler in Linux.

    posted at 10:16AM 08/15/2007
  3. einhverfr said:

    Best of luck. Both of these licenses seem to meet the OSI's definition of OSS. It is nice to see additional effort being placed in the area of cooperation by Microsoft. I would also suggest emailing them to the FSF so that they can be listed under the Free Software Licenses page along with GPL compatibility notes.

    posted at 01:31PM 08/16/2007
Post a Comment
*
*