Microsoft claiming "shared source" is approved by OSI

[Danese Cooper]

Rui,

I don't read Spanish perfectly, but what I see here is a bad title.   
The content of the original short post appears to be factually  
correct, except for the title (which conflates the Ms-PL and Ms-RL  
with "Shared Source").

This is the kind of mistake that MSFT now has an opportunity to fix  
by precisely delineating the difference between their Shared Source  
and Open Source practices.  We had a similar time of transition when  
I worked at Sun, where for many years OpenOffice.org and other  
legitimately Open Source licensed projects had to endlessly explain  
that Java was (until June 2007) still licensed under SCSL (the Sun  
version of Shared Source).

I'll copy Bill Hilf on this email so he can comment.

Danese

On Oct 18, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> Dear Chris,
>
> 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.
>
> I hope you can take this to license-discuss at opensource.org as I  
> don't subscribe it.
>
> Best,
> Rui
>
> -- 
> Fnord.
> Today is Sweetmorn, the 72nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?