Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

[Chris Travers]

On Dec 21, 2007 9:47 PM, B Galliart <bgallia at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.



First, can someone who wants to argue that OSI Approved is the only measure
of open source please point me to a page where the OSI officially claims
trademark protection for the label of "Open Source?"  Blogs don't count.  In
fact I have asked repeatedly whether a lack of approval means a lack of
being open source.  Nobody here seems to think that it is (and hence it
would make "Open Source" pretty hard to defend as a trademark IMO since
enforcement would be pretty selective, but IANAL).

In fact, take a look at the following page (more official than the blogs, I
think): http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

It says: 'Unfortunately, the term "open source" itself is subject to misuse,
and because it's descriptive, it can't be protected as a trademark (which
would have been our first choice).'

In essence, the OSI does *not* claim any protection or authority over terms
such as "open source."  In fact, the OSI's claim on the lack of authority
over the term "open source" seems clear and unambiguous.

Secondly, MS-RL is an ambiguous term.  I don't remember the OSI approving
the Microsoft Reference License...


>
>
> 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.


Again, violating the OSD doesn't cause a problem for calling a product "open
source" in any real way other than political difficulties with the OSI.  See
the Certification Page for the OSI's stance on trademark protection over the
term "open source" (the OSI claims that "open source" is not subject to
trademark protection).

Having worked at Microsoft in the past and worked with people like those who
put the MS-RecipL and MS-PL to the OSI, I think that you have to understand
that Microsoft is not a homogeneous entity with a singular strategy wrt open
souce.  Any company with that number of employees is not always going to be
able to review all decisions adequately and consistently.  So I think it is
far better to attribute this to a division not knowing better than anything
else.

Since OSI doesn't seem to officially claim sole control over determining
what applications are open source or not (for example, as far as I can see,
large parts of OpenBSD and FreeBSD use open source licenses which are not
OSI approved), it is often difficult for people in a company like Microsoft
who are not immediately involved in the communities to understand what makes
a program open source.  This is an opportunity to solve a problem not by
asking for top-down management but rather by creating a simplified
definition which can be used as a guideline not for approval discussions but
for marketing.

For example, I would suggest we might want to agree on a "Simplified
Definition of Open Source" based on common usage rather than approval
criteria (i.e. something to hand marketers rather than using for approving
licenses).  Or maybe some simple guidelines for marketers.  But we also need
to understand that these sorts of things are going to happen exactly because
(as the OSI argues) "open source" is not subject to legal protection.

Hence we should look at this as an opportunity to help make an understanding
of what "open source" represents down to the level where people don't have
to follow this list to avoid running into problems.  We can see this as
everyone else's fault, or we can see it as an opportunity for outreach.  I
would prefer the latter.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071222/ba72e75a/attachment.html>