Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

[B Galliart]

The OSI board blog asks the question "Who Is Behind 'Shared Source'
Misinformation Campaign?"  But the problem now seems to extend beyond
just a generic mistake of claiming OSI approved "Shared Source"
instead of a technically correct headline of OSI approving
MS-PL/MS-RL.  The problem now is that Microsoft is claiming other
licenses are open source too.

On Microsoft's Open Source: Learning web page [1] is a link titled
"Advancing AIDS Vaccine Research Through Open Source Approaches."  The
PDF document titled "Open Source at Microsoft: Advancing AIDS vaccine
research through open source approaches" [2] discusses the PhyloD and
other tools that make up the Microsoft Computational Biology Tools
(MSCompBio for short) on Codeplex.  The problem is that MSCompBio is
licensed under the MS-RLA [3], is not OSI approved and is not
submitted for approval.  If it was submitted, such terms as "You may
not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any
form for commercial purposes" would probably be found to violate OSD
#6.

Microsoft seems to be out to have it cake and eat it too.  They honor
the OSD when it is to their advantage for getting for the marketing
edge of claiming OSI approval.  And then they disrespect the OSD by
not submitting licenses they still intend to call "open source" but
also contain terms which violate the OSD.

I can't answer the OSI board blog's question--but I can answer who is
behind the MSCompBio/MS-RLA so-called "open source" misinformation
campaign.  The previous campaign may have had the problem of using
half truths but this latest campaign seems to be based on outright
lies.

My recommendations on correcting this is as follows:
(1) Microsoft should take down the misinformation PDF document and any
other similar misinformation from their website
(2) Microsoft should make a clear distinction between OSI approved
licensed projects on Codeplex and projects that just happen to be
"source available" but not under OSD terms.  Preferably, the
restrictive licensed projects should be moved to a completely
different website so there is no confusion among Microsoft employees
and the public as to what projects on Codeplex really are Open Source.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/learning.mspx
[2] http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/2/B/62B7FC7A-3535-4FC1-8CD4-B2E9A2CFFB1A/AIDSTools_opensource.pdf
[3] http://www.codeplex.com/MSCompBio/Project/License.aspx