For Approval: Microsoft Public License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But even in that case, Microsoft is not required to limit its usage for
>>> softwares covered by licenses not approved by OSI.
>> Screw that, Philippe.  OSI's moral claim is utterly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  When I asked about PostgreSQL's version of the BSDL, everyone said
> that approval wasn't necessary to call it open source.

I would say it's always better to get the license approved before
calling it open source.  The obvious corollary is that you should try to
use an existing approved license if possible.

However, if the unapproved license is simple (for instance, not like
Adaptive Public License [http://opensource.org/licenses/apl1.0.php] ),
and reasonable people apparently all agree it's OSD-compliant, it's not
a big deal to call it open source.  I do think these two Microsoft
licenses are clearly open source, so it doesn't bother me that much that
Microsoft's calling them open source in the interim (though it would be
better to wait).  On the other hand, licenses like Microsoft Limited
Community License (which can only be used for Windows software
development) are clearly not open source, so if Microsoft is calling
them open source (which B Galliart apparently saw) that bothers me.

> Maybe I should submit it after all.  After all, we wouldn't want people to
> claim that PostgreSQL wasn't open source, would we?

You may be being sarcastic, but I see no reason you shouldn't have
submitted it.

> If the argument is that "this is Microsoft we are talking about," then that
> is the double standard that I am arguing against,

I don't see a double standard with respect to Microsoft.  The double
standard, reasonable or unreasonable, is "If the license is obviously
OSD-compliant, you can get away with calling it Open Source without
submitting it [though it's better to submit anyway].  If the license
isn't compliant, you're abusing the term by calling it Open Source."

Anyway, this is the wrong time to have this discussion, since Microsoft
has showed respect for OSI by choosing to put its licenses through the
process.

Matt Flaschen