Quoting John Cowan ([email protected]): > Perhaps you also remember when I submitted MS-PL and another MS > license a few years before. They were rejected on the perfectly > correct process grounds that I could propose them but I couldn't > change them if the OSI requested changes (they were too new to fit > under the "legacy" category). I accepted that and withdrew them, but > I continued to maintain (in the face of attacks on Groklaw) that the > licenses were nevertheless open source, and eventually OSI agreed with > me.
FWIW, I dealt with the attacks on the Groklaw site by posting at length, there, rebutting local critics, pointing out that Ms-PL and Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License, the reciprocal one) were clearly OSD-compliant on their merits, going through particulars repeatedly, rejecting irrelevant objections as irrelevant, and noting the irrelevancy of some stabs at argumentum ad hominem. It took a few days, but the point seemed to then get through. To the best of my recollection, there were only three such 'Shared Source' licences MSFT produced on that occasion (2007, launched into the world by Mr. Bill Hilf via an OSCON keynote), the third one (Microsoft Reference License, Ms-RL) omitting rights of modification and redistribution, intended e.g., for reference copies of software libs -- obviously not open source. -- Cheers, "Maybe the law ain’t perfect, but it’s the only Rick Moen one we got, and without it we got nuthin'." [email protected] -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875 McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
