Microsoft's Open Source Licenses

[Sam Ramji]

Thanks to both Forrest and Matthew for their corrections here.  We'll be careful not to use this language to describe non-OSI-approved Shared Source licenses like this in the future.

Sam Ramji
sramji at microsoft.com
+1 (510) 913-6495

-----Original Message-----
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:mibsoft at mibsoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 6:33 AM
To: License Discuss
Cc: Jon Rosenberg (PBM)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Open Source Licenses

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
>
>>Hi Everyone - During the approval process, Sam Ramji, Bill Hilf and I
>>committed to communicating with license-discuss on the changes we
>>planned to make to our Open Source and Shared Source web properties.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>>*         The Shared Source site will classify source code licenses
>>by type. "Open Source" will be one type. The OSI approved licenses
>>will be distinguished from our product source licenses and from other
>>licenses
>
>
> That sounds good.
>
>
>>that may conform to many, but not all, provisions of the
>>OSD.
>
>
> I urge you not to approach the OSD like this.  Shared source licenses
> can't meaningfully be considered almost OSD-compliant.  They fail /core/
> parts of the definition.

This is a very important point to appreciate.

When evaluating a product against a standard, we can discuss "levels of
compliance" and estimate how completely a product implements the
FTP protocol, or HTML 4.0, for example.  We can meaningfully say that
a browser renders HTML 4.0 in 99.9% of the real-world cases when it
has some defects triggered in rare cases.

When evaluating compliance with a contract between parties, the law recognizes
partial compliance, and dilligent efforts.  It can suggest acceptable
amendments when 100% compliance is not achievable.

But the OSD is not like that.  To be a part of the Open Source
paradigm/movement/development/community/whatever-you-call-it, a license
must be 100% compliant with the OSD.  The OSD is the bare minimum.

There are some contracts like that.  The entire OSD is the "basis of the
bargain" so to speak.  Take away any part of it, and you don't have
a "meeting of the minds".  You lose something essential.

I fully applaud the approach Microsoft has taken so far to these two
new licenses.  Thank you.  I hope my writing here is taken as constructive,
and not critical of your efforts.