Microsoft's Open Source Licenses

[Cinly Ooi]

Dear All,

>>[other shared source licenses] 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.
>

NOTE: the phrase "[other shared source licenses]' is my addition to make the
sentence more readable.

I do not like the idea of "yes or no" argument. Whether Microsoft can claim
that its "other" licenses share some characteristics of OSD approved license
is up to OSD to decide. Not me.

We should only restrict ourselves to whether Rosenberg's statements are
accurate or have the potential to cause confusion.

My $0.02 is Rosenberg's statement is inaccurate:

The diversity of Microsoft Shared Source license means it covers a very
large (or full?) spectrum, from 99.999% proprietary "look but don't touch"
license to 100% OSD approved license. Rosenberg's statement appears to put
**all** shared source licenses into the category "conform to **many**" and
this is obviously inaccurate for those license that are closer to the
proprietary section of the spectrum. That part of the spectrum satisfy
"none" or "few" provisions of OSD.

The other $0.02 says that such a statement adds to confusion, not clarify
it.

Best Regards,
Cinly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071102/94709b69/attachment.html>