Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

[Jamie Cannon]

Hello,

In this case, MSCompBio is licensed under the Microsoft Research License - a license which makes source freely available, with the condition that usage be non-commercial in nature. This is considered standard in fields of research or academia. This license is in fact maintained by Microsoft Research, not Shared Source.



I work for Bill and Sam & can ensure we're committed to clarity on what projects are OSI approved, and which are not. There is a wave of updates for microsoft.com in January to address these types of concerns.  These updates also reflect work across Microsoft on guidelines about how to communicate these topics.



The web team is on break until January, but we'll take a look at that article as soon as everyone is back.



Thanks,

Jamie

From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:57 PM
To: bgallia at luc.edu; License Discuss
Subject: RE: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source"

Seems like someone messed up rather than some MS misinformation campaign.  They write:

[http://img.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/graphics/msr.jpg]<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2007/jun07/06-13aidsresearch.mspx>

Microsoft Shared Source assists AIDS research<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2007/jun07/06-13aidsresearch.mspx>

Through CodePlex<http://www.codeplex.com/>, Microsoft's open source project portal, Microsoft Research is sharing source code and tools with the global health community to help scientists expedite AIDS research. View the project<http://www.codeplex.com/MSCompBio/> on CodePlex, or read the press release<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2007/jun07/06-13aidsresearch.mspx> for more information.



http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx

Also when you look at Open Source Licenses MS clearly only lists Ms-PL and MS-RL.

They appear still be sorting out their sites with old material and new and a mixture of terms as they list MS Reciprocal as MS-RL, no short form for MS-Reference but refer to MS-Reference as MS-RL in some documents.

The PDF says they use an open source approach and not specifically an open source license.  Eh, that's about right.  And while CodePlex should probably be described as MS's shared source portal I guess it depends on point of view.  Shared source is the more general term that covers both shared and open source projects at MS but if MS is trying to orient more on the two OSI approved licenses for CodePlex that's even better.

The various reference source stuff there isn't anything you can contribute to or join anyway.  Nice to have but not as important as the open source projects hosted on CodePlex.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071222/322e5271/attachment.html>