MS continued attack on OSD #6

Michael Tiemann tiemann at
Tue Mar 25 00:54:33 UTC 2008

Rick, I don't understand at all what you are talking about.  I believe it is
pure crap to set up a website that purports to host open source materials,
and then populate it with things that are not such, especially things that
are referred to as if they might be, and then leaving it only to the careful
reader to not "well, that item cannot be open source because it violates
OSD#6".  In my opinion this is a clear attempt to probe exactly how much
crap they can get away with.  You seem to be saying "hey, the smart people
know it's crap--no harm no foul".  B. Galliart is saying "the claims are
clearly bogus.  We should hold them to account."

If I'm understanding everything here correctly, B. Galliart is on top of
things.  Maybe I don't understand your complaint.


On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Rick Moen <rick at> wrote:

> Quoting B Galliart (bgallia at
> > The fact that the title needed to be corrected at all seems to
> > indicate a need to be more alarmed than less.
> /me showers B Galliart with magic perspective sauce, and points out that
> he just used the phrase "a need to more alarmed" in connection to a
> Slashdot thread prompted by a mistaken blog posting by a corporate
> intern.  We both laugh and walk away, our day brightened by the comic
> moment.  Exeunt omnes.
> > Microsoft seems to go several step further than the QNX press release.
> > It claims MSCompBio is open source.[2]
> This is the same overblown reference to a puff-job marketing PDF we saw
> before, and incremental antiquity has not piled noticeable merit atop
> the earlier citation.
> > Microsoft's own statement about the availability for Singularity[4]
> > seems to imply that it is open source:
> >
> > "The Singularity Research Development Kit (RDK) 1.1 is now available
> > for academic non-commercial use. You can download it from CodePlex,
> > Microsoft's open source project hosting website, here."
> Used cow food, sir.
> "Available for academin non-commercial use" is as clear as one could
> wish for.
> One more time, sir, before I write you off entirely:
>  People on this mailing list tend to have limited amounts of time and
>  effort to devote to it.  Accordingly, your best chance at being taken
>  seriously is to avoid exaggeration -- e.g., don't pretend that some
>  college intern's screwup is anything like corporate policy -- and, avoid
>  time-wasting rhetorical excess, and make very sure you include vital
>  details like _why_ you consider otherwise apparently motley marketing
>  fluff on the Internet to merit OSI's time and trouble.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list