For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

Chris DiBona cdibona at
Fri Aug 17 03:44:21 UTC 2007

On 8/16/07, Chris Travers <chris at> wrote:
> Chris DiBona wrote:
> > I appreciate your answers (and largely agree with them) but I want to
> > hear it from Microsoft. OSI deserves it.
> >
> So would I but only one of your questions really centered around the
> license so other questions seem irrelevant to approval of the license
> per se.  IMHO, that is.

Sort of? .I still would like them to reply to my questions for the
good of the OSI. I know it sounds naive to expect that.

> My only point is that if we don't keep the approval discussion to the
> license itself, then we are going to have bigger issues than this.  The
> basic issue is:  If we hold attacks against the GPL by Microsoft against
> them in these procedings then it becomes reasonable to hold attacks
> against *any other* OSI-approved license by any other submitting
> organization.  Do we want to open this door even a little?

I guess I'd like us to see the door for what it is, and maybe
understand where it is going to lead us should we step through it with
these two licenses from Microsoft. Bringing the FSF and the GPL into
this discussion seems distracting and divisive to me.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list