For Approval: Microsoft Public License

[B Galliart]

I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback they provided.  I will try
to address the all the questions and points made.

Nigel Tzeng points out that there shouldn't be any difference if the
PowerToys for Visual Studio is licensed under the MS-CL or LGPL.  I
agree with him on this.  In both cases the project's ability to honor
the spirit of the open source definition becomes tainted by the
limitations the SDK applies.  In fact, I believe the Visual Studio SDK
license terms is incompatible with the LGPL.  But regardless of the
license used for PowerToys for Visual Studio, the full project is
really covered by two licenses, not just one.  To recompile and use
the project as it is currently intended to be used requires accepting
two licenses of which one of those licenses limits modifications and
redistribution.

Rick Moen asks when has the OSI ever approved "projects"?  Of course,
choosing on a project by project basis if it is actually honoring the
open source definition is something Debian and not the OSI.  But the
OSI does go beyond just approving/disapproving of licenses.  The OSI
blog posts points out when TV shows get the open source term correct
and have been critical of so-called open source software.  I don't
think it is unreasonable to expect OSI to qualify their acceptance of
licenses or to ask MS to change their SDKs to include a waver of
limitations when used with open source software.  The press coverage
of an approval seems to be much more than the coverage when the OSI
disapproves of something.  I think providing a qualification after the
fact won't be as effective as making it a qualification of the
approval.

It is also pointed out that I failed to provide any references when MS
has used the term "open source" where "shared source" should have been
the correct term.  One such example is here:

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2007/08/24/open-source-projects-on-windows.aspx

In this case, the term "shared source" is never used, only "open
source" is provided equally for projects overed by MS-PL, LGPL, MS-CL,
dCPL and MSR-LA.  To put this into context, Port 25 is run by MS Open
Source Software Lab and I believe falls under Bill Hilf, the director
of Open Source projects.  The person posting, Jamie Cannon, is OSS
Community Manager.  So, on one hand Bill Hilf is explaining that
"shared source" exists to make a distinction between OSI submitted and
non-OSI submitted licenses.  On the other hand, his own OSS Community
manager is blending everything together as "open source."  While I do
look forward to the day when all Codeplex licenses are submitted for
OSI approval, that doesn't exist yet and Bill Hilf's claim of making a
distinction does not appear to be adhered to even by the group that
should know better.

Philippe Verdy points out that OSI is not the exclusive owner of the
term "open source."  I agree with him on this point.  However,
submitting the licenses should be taken as attempt to become a member
of the OSS community.  This should imply that they will honor the
accepted traditions of that community.  If I join a martial arts group
for the first time already wearing a black belt, I would expect the
group to be critical of me.  Material arts has no legal monopoly on
black belts but to become a community member has additional standards.
 For MS to submit to the OSI mailing list they are willing to make a
distinction and then throw around "open source" as an empty marketing
term is as offensive as claiming to be a black belt on the first day
of learning a martial art.