For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
chris at metatrontech.com
Fri Aug 17 16:14:30 UTC 2007
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Bill Hilf <billhilf at microsoft.com> writes:
>> I'm unclear how some of your questions are related to our license
>> submissions, which is what I believe this list and the submission
>> process are designed to facilitate. You're questioning things such
>> as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses
>> on our web site, and how we work with OEMs - none of which I could
>> find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd.
> Basically, Chris doesn't want the OSI do approve a license submitted
> by an organization of which he personally disapproves, regardless of
> the merits of the license itself. Hey, I can sympathize - personally,
> I really don't approve of the FSF, and I'd love to see the OSI turn
> down the GPLv3.
Well put. I would add that I think the OSI should turn down any
licenses from any submitters (FSF, Microsoft, or otherwise) if there are
unanswered valid concerns about how well it meets the OSD. But I think
approval discussion should be limited to the scope of the license though
polite requests may be broader.
> Except I wouldn't, really, because then the OSI would lose every shred
> of credibility and quickly become irrelevant - just like it would if
> it failed to carefully consider the licenses submitted by Microsoft,
> or to approve them if they were found to adhere to the OSD.
Agreed. I do think that the license proliferation questions are valid
but should not be grounds for rejecting the license. I think it is
perfectly reasonable to ask "do you *really* need these licenses? Would
you consider adopting existing licenses instead?" But I would not
suggest rejecting the license based on any answer.
> I don't
> want the OSI to lose its credibility and become irrelevant, and I
> believe that both licenses submitted by Microsoft are OSD-compliant.
See my points above in response to Chris's request for information. I
would further note that many of the answers to Chris's questions were
actually found in the archive of this thread :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss