Blogger claiming "shared source" is approved by OSI

[B Galliart]

On 10/18/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at linpro.no> wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms at 1407.org> writes:
> > http://blogs.technet.com/openchoice/archive/2007/10/17/shared-source-aprovado-pela-open-source-initiative.aspx
> >
> > The real motivation for the two "open source" licenses Microsoft got
> > through OSI has just came up.
> >
> > As many feared, they are trying to further dillute the "open source"
> > term by now claiming "shared source" to have been approved by OSI.
>
> Uh, no.  Look closer.  Some random blogger claimed that Shared Source
> was approved by the OSI; Microsoft hasn't said anything (yet).
>

The random blogger, Marcos Santos, is an employee of Microsoft.  Take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/2070/portugal/presspass/media/fotos/MarcosSantos_2.jpg

This isn't an isolated event.  As I stated before, Microsoft's Jamie
Cannon has implied that MS-dCPL and MSR-LA covered projects are "Open
Source projects on Windows."  Microsoft's Sam Ramji follows up with:
"This post should be titled 'Open Source Projects on Codeplex.'"
Instead of correcting the title as being "Open Source and Shared
Source Projects on Codeplex" to re-assert a distinction, Sam Ramji
reaffirms the growing trend of Microsoft employees treating "Open
Source" and "Shared Source" as interchangeable terms.

It would be nice to be able to point Jamie Cannon, Sam Ramji and
Marcos Santos to a Microsoft policy which discourages their employees
from diluting the distinction between Open Source and Shared
Source--but no such policy is publicly stated anyplace.  So far, Bill
Hilf isn't offering one either.  Instead, the only offer I have heard
is a distinction will be made on *one* Microsoft web page.  I doubt
this offer will slow the momentum in diluting the concept of Open
Source by Microsoft employee promoting the concept that all Shared
Source is the same.