MS continued attack on OSD #6

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at
Tue Mar 25 04:35:30 UTC 2008

>Michael Tiemann
>Rick, I don't understand at all what you are talking about.  
>If I'm understanding everything here correctly, B. Galliart is on top of things.  Maybe I don't 
>understand your complaint.

Because he's making a statement from an intern a part of some grand MS consipiracy against Open Source?
With respect to CodePlex a good number of projects are MS-PL and presumably that number will grow and hopefully dominate.  The ratio will never likely quite approach that of SourceForge but even on SourceForge there are a few projects listed under "other" for license that point to home grown licenses that may, or may not fullfill all of the OSD.  I know I looked at a couple, shrugged my shoulders and looked for an alternative.
If you know what Open Source is, it isn't hard to look at a project on CodePlex, as on SourceForge, flick to the license tab and determine that its using an open source license you can agree with.  MSR-LA is clearly an academic use license, not open source per the OSD.  For some folks this is sufficient.  For many, if not most, others it likely is not.  But it's not hidden and if you couldn't figure it out you aren't even doing the most minimal due dilligence on understanding license requirements.
If there's a legitimate complaint about CodePlex its that their FAQ on what is an Open Source license should be updated to definition accepted by MS:  What meets the OSD.  I'm guessing if you asked, they'd fix that oversight since it appears to be the old corporate position.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list