Pilot

re: Pilot

fluke — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:07:13 GMT

Thank you. I look forward to the wave of updates to microsoft.com in January. It is my hope that someday Microsoft's commitment to clarity will result in a better distinction in the Codeplex layout as well.

re: Pilot

jcannon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:02:14 GMT

fluke, I modified some of the language to be more clear in the post.

re: Pilot

fluke — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:50:00 GMT

"What many folks may not know is that there are over 2,000 open source projects available on Codeplex. Check out, among others: Computational Biology Tools" . The meaning seems clear that your claiming there was over 2,000 open source project available on Codeplex on Aug 24th. I claim that the majority of projects on Codeplex where not under OSI approved licenses on August 24th, 2007 and as such the number available fell far short of 2,000. Also, the meaning seems clear that you claim the Computational Biology Tools is among those projects on Codeplex that are open source. Again, the MS-RLA is not approved by the OSI as being open source and as such neither should Computational Biology Tools be considered open source. Also, the eWeek list of 25 Codeplex projects does not contain MSCompBio or claim it to be open source. It is *your* list, not eWeek's, that claims MSCompBio is among the "open source" projects provided on Codeplex. . With this latest blog update you seem to be using the "open approaches" link to reiterate the claim that MSCompBio is open source. The meaning behind the PDF document to claim that PhyloD and the other tools making up MSCompBio is considered by Microsoft to be open source. In doing so, Microsoft is also clearly disregarding OSI's roll in approving the license first. . I call MS-RLA a Shared Source license because it is a MS authored license intended to apply to projects that are released to the public in source code form. If there is a different definition for what should be called a Shared Source license, please let me know. But please be aware that the definition for what should be called open source is available at: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

re: Pilot

jcannon — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:26:59 GMT

fluke,

The post you mention, "Open Source Projects on Windows" was a direct reference to an eWeek article - there was no other meaning intended. In addition, I don't see where the MS-RLA is called Shared Source - can you specify?

Your point is understood and we're working hard to ensure the delineation between the two is made clearly.

re: Pilot

fluke — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:03:34 GMT

"... I'm excited about discussing and expanding this list out in the open." . I really do not think your excited about having a *two way* discussion in the open. But I do believe you are excited about expanding the list of what *you* call "open source." I would go as far as to claim that your so excited that you would include projects that are really under Shared Source licenses on that expanded list. In fact, I think you already did. On Aug 24th, there was posted under the title "Open Source Projects on Windows" a claim that there where "over 2,000 open source projects available on Codexplex." As an example of how to reach the number 2,000 of so-called open source project, the reader is asked to "check out" a short list of projects including the Computational Biological Tools (also known as MSCompBio). But this project is not under an OSI approved license but rather the Shared Source license of MSR-LA. But it does help "expand" the list to claim it is open source instead of just Shared Source. . So, as a follow up to your blog entry, I submitted a Port 25 "talkback" stating that the MSCompBio package is not open source. But such two way open discussion was refused and the talkback was never displayed. Instead, Bill Hilf and Jon Rosenberg went on the OSI mailing list claiming that Microsoft is willing to make a distinction between Shared Source licenses and Open Source licenses. I followed up that such a distinction on one web page is of limited benefit when a Microsoft employee with a title of "OSS/Community Manager" is lumping Shared Source licenses in a list of open source projects. Sam Ramji excused the action as being part of the amount of time it will take to train Microsoft's over 79,000 employees. But I'm not talking about training all 79+k employees, I'm just talking about employees with OSS in their title. . Now under the link "open approaches" is a document titled "Open Source at Microsoft: Advancing AIDS vaccine research through open source approaches." This must be the "open approaches" document that Jamie Cannon was referring to. And it talks about PhyloD and other tools from the MSBioComp project. But the project is still under a non-OSI approved MSR-LA Shared Source license. Reading the entire article, it seems that Microsoft's contribution to AIDS vaccine research is provided only under Shared Source licensing. Where is the open source approach that Microsoft is contributing to? Or is this just another case of getting so excited to expand the list that Bill Hilf claim that MS will provide a distinction between open source and Shared Source is disregarded? . Can you explain how being excited about passing off Shared Source projects as being open source really works to the OSS community's benefit? Is diluting the term "open source" with Shared Source projects that do not honor the OSI's Open Source Definition something that the OSS community should be happy about? . You highlighted examples of what MS is doing wrong--but why?? Wouldn't you rather highlight what MS is doing right?

Quoi de neuf sur les sites Port25 et OpenSource@Microsoft

Porte25: Open Source et Interop @ Microsoft — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:44:43 GMT

Depuis mes derniers articles, il y a près d’un mois sous forme d’une « revue de presse » des deux principaux