Microsoft claiming "shared source" is approved by OSI

Dear Chris,

ht
tp://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-discussopensource.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...?

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/2007/1
0/17/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-discussopensource.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...?

Danese Cooper scripsit:

> I don't read Spanish perfectly, but what I see here is
a bad title.   

Particularly when it's Portuguese!

> 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").

I agree.

-- 
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John
Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)          
cowanccil.org

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms1407.org> writes:
> ht
tp://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).

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

Copying Bill Hilf on this comment.  Can you guys please keep
all the  
CCs intact?

Danese

On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms1407.org> writes:
>> http://blogs.technet.com/openchoice/archive/2007/1
0/17/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).
>
> DES
> -- 
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Senior Software Developer
> Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

Thanks Danese.

As was mentioned, the headline of this blog isn't correct. 
My Portuguese is only good enough to order food or beer, but
I will let some of my folks there comment on this blog to
help clarify.  Or if someone wants to translate this message
and post there, that works too.

It's a good opportunity to share what we are doing next
related to this subject.  We are currently re-designing our
web site to make the OSI approved licenses clearly
delineated from all other things shared source.  We are
shooting for mid-November to have this done.  Moreover, we
will outline these changes to license-discuss before we
publish so we can get feedback.  We said we would do this
before and I want to make sure we're proactive versus
reactive here.

Thanks,
Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danese Cooper [mailto:danesegmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:22 AM
> To: Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Cc: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra; chrisdibona.com; license-
> discussopensource.org; Bill Hilf
> Subject: Re: Blogger claiming "shared source"
is approved by OSI
>
> Copying Bill Hilf on this comment.  Can you guys please
keep all the
> CCs intact?
>
> Danese
>
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav
wrote:
>
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms1407.org> writes:
> >> http://blogs.technet.com/openchoice/archive/2007/1
0/17/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).
> >
> > DES
> > --
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> > Senior Software Developer
> > Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

On 10/18/07, Danese Cooper <danesegmail.com> wrote:
> Copying Bill Hilf on this comment.  Can you guys please
keep all the
> CCs intact?

To quote Tim Smith of gnu.misc.discuss (and also c.o.l.a.)
replying to
some paranoid GNUtian and "freedom" lover like
mini-RMS
(<rms1407.org>) fellow:

------
A lot of your items fall victim to what I call the blog
effect.  What
happens is that *one* blog posts a bit of speculation, or
otherwise
posts something that turns out not to be accurate.  Other
bloggers read
it, and some post about it.  Others read those, and some of
those blog,
and so on.  Once you get past the first level, you start
losing some of
the paths back to the original.  So you end up with blogs
repeating the
original item, saying that they got it from several blogs,
and that
gives the impression that there are independent sources for
the
item--but it all goes back to one, unverified, source.

And nowadays, all the major tech news outlets ALSO have
blogs, so people
read something on a CNET or Wired blog, say, and then when
they blog
about it, they say "CNET is reporting that...",
and this adds further
credibility in the mind of subsequent readers--they think
the blogger is
reporting on a news story from CNET, not on a random CNET
blog entry.
------

regards,
alexander.

--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I
need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the
site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my
story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of
them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."

                                    -- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc

Hi Bill,

On 10/18/07, Bill Hilf <billhilfmicrosoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks Danese.
>
> As was mentioned, the headline of this blog isn't
correct.  My Portuguese is only
> good enough to order food or beer, but I will let some
of my folks there comment on

http://port25.technet.com/archive/200
7/10/16/microsoft-out-in-the-open.aspx
http://blogs.
zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=835
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/014351.
html
http://blogs.
guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/17/osi_approves_microsofts
_open_source_licences.html
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/10/17/22
7532/open-source-initiative-approves-two-microsoft-shared-so
urce.htm

http://www.cmswire.com/cms/open-source-cms/microsoft-shared-
source-licenses-officially-go-open-source-001832.php

Happy Netsurfing.

Kudos for shared source embracement of open source.  

regards,
alexander.

--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I
need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the
site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my
story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of
them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."

                                   -- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc

"Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhovgmail.com> writes:
> To quote Tim Smith of gnu.misc.discuss (and also
c.o.l.a.) replying to
> some paranoid GNUtian and "freedom" lover
like mini-RMS
> (<rms1407.org>) fellow:
>
> ------
> A lot of your items fall victim to what I call the blog
effect.  What
> happens is that *one* blog posts a bit of speculation,
or otherwise
> posts something that turns out not to be accurate. 
Other bloggers read
> it, and some post about it.  Others read those, and
some of those blog,
> and so on.  Once you get past the first level, you
start losing some of
> the paths back to the original.  So you end up with
blogs repeating the
> original item, saying that they got it from several
blogs, and that
> gives the impression that there are independent sources
for the
> item--but it all goes back to one, unverified, source.
>
> And nowadays, all the major tech news outlets ALSO have
blogs, so people
> read something on a CNET or Wired blog, say, and then
when they blog
> about it, they say "CNET is reporting
that...", and this adds further
> credibility in the mind of subsequent readers--they
think the blogger is
> reporting on a news story from CNET, not on a random
CNET blog entry.
> ------

This happens all the time - just look at how often
Cringeley's
speculations about Google or Apple are reported as fact by
the
mainstream press a few days later.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no