Comments on: Here Come the Anti-GNU/Linux (Yet ‘Open’) Software Licences from Microsoft http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-6/#comment-26042 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:54:14 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26042 I don’t think anyone is arguing that Microsoft have some particularly poor licenses in their “shared source” stink.

However, I think Miguel did a very good thing convincing them to release something that was proprietary as free software. Microsoft are using free software themselves – witness the recent news about jQuery – and it’s good to see them give back, even if limited.

Remember, you can take their stuff and turn it into Java or something even if you don’t like the original.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-6/#comment-26041 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:50:20 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26041 Oops. My bad, I missed it.

Just spotted this post in Groklaw’s News Picks:

Microsoft bad cop is up against the wall

“This time they are offering Windows-only code on their “open source” CodePlex site. It’s not that this is technically impossible. It’s just prohibited by license.

[...]

“Last time they played this game they were pushing OOXML as an ISO standard. Before that they were promising to bury open source in patent suits.

“Now they’re trying to sneak semi-proprietary code on their own site.

“It’s like a crime boss getting arrested for pickpocketing. Lex Luthor gets a parking ticket, and pays it. Godzilla has become Reptar.

“So instead of taking deep umbrage, I’m just sad. You want a super villain to be, well, super. Not silly.”

]]> By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-6/#comment-26039 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:45:45 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26039 @Roy: Er, I did!

The FSF stance is no different to many other licenses: it’s a free license, but it does the same as Apache and therefore you shouldn’t use it for new software.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-6/#comment-26036 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:00:35 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26036 You posted no link/s here. I just want to see, explicitly, the FSF’s statement on this issue. Genuine curiously, not that I necessarily doubt it.

]]> By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-5/#comment-26034 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:52:25 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26034 @Roy: I gave the link several comments ago.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-5/#comment-26031 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:36:10 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26031 Do you have a link for that, Dan?

]]> By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-5/#comment-26030 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:24:31 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26030 @Joshua_K:

Except, the license doesn’t self-destruct automatically. That would be non-free.

What happens is that you lose any patent license from that contributor. Which is the reasonably well-known “self defence” clause.

]]> By: Dan O'Brian http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-5/#comment-26015 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:56:12 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26015 The FSF has declared the MS-PL to be a Free Software license, therefor it is compatible in the philosophical sense.

]]> By: Joshua K http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-5/#comment-26004 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:07:26 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-26004 @AlexH
Just because a large body declares the license to be “compatible” doesn’t actually make it so in the philosophical sense. Perhaps you missed my quotation of clauses 3B of the Microsoft Public License, and 3C of the Microsoft Reciprocal License. The difference between the General Public License Section 11 and Microsoft’s licenses is that the GPL does not self-destruct upon patent infringement claims, while the Microsoft licenses do. Although they look similar, the interpretation is vastly different.

]]> By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-4/#comment-25957 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:56:43 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25957 @Joshua_K: that’s completely untrue.

Both GPL and Apache V2 have a similar clause, and the FSF consider the MS-PL to be a free license.

There’s no reason to extend patent licenses to those who attack you first, that’s not a “freedom” that needs protecting.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-4/#comment-25953 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:36:40 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25953 Joshua K,

I included your perspective in this followup post.

]]> By: Joshua K http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-4/#comment-25949 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:26:02 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25949 The simple fact and truth is that those ‘revised’ licenses are not and will never be considered ‘free’ licenses. I am referring to the MS-PL and the MS-RL. Both are lies by specific clause:

“””If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.”””

I wrote about the implications, but apparently the link was mangled.

http://stable-entropy.blogspot.com/2008/08/extents-of-open-source-microsoft.html

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-4/#comment-25830 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:45:56 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25830 That’s one possibility that I was going to mention. Boycott Novell is in Slashdot’s front page today, so it’ll wait until tomorrow. :-)

]]> By: Dan O'Brian http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-4/#comment-25820 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:26:57 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25820 Probably because they feel that Mono has filled that gap.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-3/#comment-25815 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:15:19 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25815 What matters is that dotgnu was there last year, but it’s no longer a priority.

]]> By: Dan O'Brian http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-3/#comment-25814 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:55:47 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25814 Well, that’s nice for the FSF – but no one can argue that the FSF’s priority list is the be-all/end-all.

There are clearly a lot of people interested in .NET on Linux.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-3/#comment-25813 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:52:37 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25813 I’ll write more about it shortly. .NET clones are off the FSF’s priority list this year.

]]> By: AlexH http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-3/#comment-25812 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:45:29 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25812 Or, simply, he just has a different point of view.

By saying he went “running back to Microsoft” makes it sounds like MS didn’t meet his demands, which they did. It’s a shame you didn’t point that out more clearly.

]]> By: Dan O'Brian http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-3/#comment-25811 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:44:11 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25811 Miguel has been in this industry for a long long time. He’s not new to the game. I don’t understand how you think you could possibly know better than Miguel when you’ve never even so much as left academia to experience the real world. And you’ve certainly never worked in the industry and so can’t even pretend to understand it.

He’s not being used by Microsoft, he’s forcing their hand. He’s the one calling them out (re MS-LPL) and convincing them to play nice. He may not always be successful, but he’s accomplished a lot more than this site has toward reaching the goals of “Free Software Everywhere” than you could ever hope to accomplish.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/comment-page-2/#comment-25810 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:23:35 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/03/anti-gnulinux-sw-license/#comment-25810 I know this. Miguel is not the bad guy. He just refuses to believe or understand how he’s being used for others to be used and sued.

]]>