Microsoft Reduces Shared Source Licenses

UltimaGuy writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft will be reducing the number of licenses that it will use for its Shared Source Initiative. Instead of more than 10 different licenses they are aiming for just three core licenses. The first license format, Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License), is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License. The third format, Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology."

Except that there are 4 licenses...

[Benanov (583592)]

From TFW:

"Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case basis based upon commercial considerations."

Limited but Permissive. Insert 1984 newspeak reference here.

And they add this limitation as a benefit! Whee.

I'm so jaded I'm not even going to read the terms--I'm just going to stay far far away from them. Not even interested.

I mean...5.

[Benanov (583592)]

Okay, actually there are 5. There's a Limited Community License too: "Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Community License (Ms-LCL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case

Re:Except that there are 4 licenses...

[VStrider (787148)]

You're obviously trolling but I'll bite. GPL software is free as in freedom. You can do anything you want with it, including modifying and redistributing the source as long as you release your modifications under the same GPL licence for the benefit of the whole community. There is also commercial open source software out there that is GPL'd and it's free as in freedom but not free as in beer.

And what exactly doesn't inter-operate with other licences and why does it have to? If the GPL was compatible with MS licences or other closed source licenses you'd lose your freedom on the software. And vice-versa. If MS were to make their licences compatible with the GPL, they would have to abandon their control over the source and give all the freedom the GPL provides. They'd never do that.

R.Stallman can change what at will? If you release your software under the GPLv2 and GPL is revised to v3, you can still continue to release your software under GPLv2. I don't see your point. Or maybe I do, you intended to mislead and spread disinformation.

If these are really BSD and MPL style

[by Anonymous Coward]

then I look forward to seeing entries for them on GNU's list of "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses".

Yeah, they don't seem bad.

[pavon (30274)]

I don't see anything in the Ms-PL and Ms-CL that would prevent them from meeting the definition of Free Software, so I would definitely expect them to get on the list. I was also pleasantly surprised to see how short and straight-forward the actual texts of the licenses are.

The limited version of the licenses (Ms-LPL, and Ms-LCL) are definitely not free software as the limit their use to a single operating system, and of course the Ms-RL isn't even close to being free software, so it won't be on there.

As for GPL compatibility, that is a more difficult question, and is more dependent on legal details than differences in philosophy. IANAL, but I'd guess that they are not GPL compatible because of the Patent Litigation Clause:

(D) If you begin patent litigation against Microsoft over patents that you think may apply to the software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), your license to the software ends automatically.

This is a restriction that is not in the GPL, and the GPL has a clause that you cannot place any restrictions on the user beyond what is listed in the GPL. It should be noted that the Free Software Foundation is not opposed to a clause like this, and are in fact considering adding one to the next version of the GPL.

So, by my interpretation, they have technical incompatibilities with the GPL which may go away with the next version of the GPL.

I forgot to add.

[pavon (30274)]

One thing in particular that I was glad to see was the absence of any unbalanced vendor rights that exist in many open source licenses created for commercial use. For example, the Netscape Public License requires you to give any changes that you make back to Netscape, regardless of whether you redistribute the changes. Furthermore, it requires that you give Netscape permission to use the changes in proprietary, binary-only products for which they don't release the source.

However the Ms-PL and Ms-CL do not g

Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style

[murphyslawyer (534449)]

I doubt it. GPL or GPL-compatible philosophy is basically "you can do whatever you want with the source"

That's not really true - Do What You Want with the source code is a BSD philosophy. GPL is more of an All Software Should Be Open Source philosophy and it trys to enforce that.

Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style

[s20451 (410424)]

you can do whatever you want with the source

Except relicense it with anything other than the GPL, and except keeping your modifications closed source. Ironically quite restrictive, compared MS-PL.

Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style

[2short (466733)]

No, that's the BSD license. With BSD licensed code, you can do whatever you want with it. One of the things you can do with it is include it in a project you then release under the GPL (or any licence you like); therefore the BSD license is GPL compatible, and so will the MS one be if it is really BSD like. The GPL quite clearly does not let you do whatever you want with the code: you cannot release it under a different license.

Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style

[OrangeTide (124937)]

GPL is restrictive, with the purpose of preserving Open Source. GPL philosophy is basically "You may do what you wish with this, as long as anything linked to it is under the same/compatible license".

MS-PL does not seem too restrictive, if you only wish to use Microsoft's propritary OS.

"(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

I would probably say MS-PL's philosophy is: "You can do anything you want with this, as long as it does not dilute our empire"

We need to reduce number of open source licenses

[by Anonymous Coward]

We need to reduce number of open source licenses as well. It is becoming harder and harder to answer questions about what licenses are cross-compatible. For example, the Sakai Project, a major undertaking from UMich, Indiana, Stanford, MIT, et al uses a new Educational Community License. Why?! Have we not defined the BSD space well enough with modified BSD and MIT licenses? Now, you see people asking questions about GPL compatability with this new license and no one has answers...

No One has answers?

[brunes69 (86786)]

Or no one is asking? It is pretty obvious to me that this license is not GPL compatable, and I am no lawyer. All you have to do is read it. These two provisions make it impossible:

Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.

Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.

A software licensed under the GPL does not have to provide notice of any changes made from the original work. SO this makes it non-compatable.

As for the second clause, it i so vague I don't even know how it could be enforced.

Mixed feelings

[Bogtha (906264)]

On the one hand, these licenses are a good thing. For example, Internet Explorer has a mysterious "hasLayout" feature that screws with CSS development. For years it went undocumented apart from a couple of obscure references in MSDN documentation. If Internet Explorer had been released under one of these "look but don't touch" licenses, we would at least have been able to figure it out for ourselves.

On the other hand, this type of license reduces the pressure for real openness and shared code. This type of license will undoubtedly be seen as an alternative to a real open-source license, and offers an easy way out to organisations that might otherwise have opened up their source.

In any case, the BSD-style license sounds decent enough, it's just the "look but don't touch" licenses I'm wary of.

Re:Mixed feelings

[DaHat (247651)]

Microsoft has only released licenses, not any code under any of these licenses.

Incorrect, they do so and have done so for years.

I could be wrong... but no part of 'release' means 'to the world at large'... Microsoft has been making the Windows source code available to various colleges and companies for years under rather tight control because they don't want (for obvious reasons) the world at large to have access to it.

Don't believe me? Just take a look at a list of current licensees [microsoft.com].

Of course...

[metamatic (202216)]

...most Microsoft products will continue to be distributed under the MSBOL, the Microsoft Bend Over License.

FSF Europe's comment

[hkl387 (565152)]

Free Software Foundation Europe has already released an early comment on the issue, cautiously welcomming some of the new licenses:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q4/000120.html [fsfeurope.org]

Code Review

[Cardoe (563677)]

We probably will see a bunch of shared sourced or open sourced Microsoft apps in the next few years but there are a couple of considerations that must first be evaluated. First Microsoft is a large corporate entity with a certain culture, that culture needs to be changed. We're slowly seeing the changes today. You can see this when a guy at the bottom contributes to an open source project and his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss goes on record with the media saying that "Open Source kills babies". The evolution in their corporate culture is slowly happening but stills needs some time to trickle upwards. Right now the execs see open source as the new catch phrase and are trying to show off that they know what it is and they are catering to customers. (i.e. the hiring of Daniel Robbins, of Gentoo Linux fame, for Linux projects).

Secondly they need to go through a massive code review for two reasons primarily because the legal team knows Microsoft is everyone's favorite (easiest??) target for a lawsuit (this doesn't mean a victory... just to initiate). They need to know where every single line of code came from and what are their rights to that code before they can open the code up. Because you know the first thing the lawyers will do is try to find someway to sue them for stealing source code. They need to guard themselves against "SCO vs IBM" type lawsuits.

The other reason they need to complete this code review is because they need to track down and fix as many of the security holes in their software that they can do in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise this code will be used to ferret out security holes and we will see a new wave of security issues like no one has seen before, because admit it, Microsft products do run on the majority of machines today. The media will portray this as Microsoft handed the hackers the tools and Microsoft will see a lot of their business dry up because companies won't know if they are safe if they go with Microsoft. Once they release this cleaned up code, they will be able to smuggly throw it in everyone's face saying "See we're not so bad after all."

Three New Licenses in Brief

[HairyNips(*)(*) (903978)]

Depending upon which source code you see:

1) You are Bill Gates' bitch forever.
2) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever.
3) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever and you have to watch him do the monkey dance.

MS makes alot of things similar

[Deternal (239896)]

"is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License"

Yes, just like MS Html is similar to html, MS .NET is similar to Java, MS Active Directory is similar to Novell Directory except not really ldap compliant, MS Java is similar to java etc.

About time they started making similar licenses too :)

I get it!

[Sheepdot (211478)]

What it says:
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a Microsoft technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. This license is used primarily for technologies such as development libraries.

What it means:
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is an open invitation to a future lawsuit. You get to look at our code, and we get to sue your ass when you create something that does a similar function. Since we will have proof of who has viewed our code from user registrations, we'll start scanning open source community websites for names of those users here in a few years. If you can't pay us, it's okay, we'll just take over your project for you.

Re:I get it!

[2short (466733)]

I can understand your concern, but actually the Reference license makes a lot of sense for things like development libraries. If I'm getting some unexpected behavior from some MS lib, it's nice to be able to debug into it and see what's going on. I can't modify it, but I wasn't going to anyway; I've got to make my code work with the unmodified lib that will be on my users machines.

Besides, having seen code that does something, then writing code to do that thing does not put you on the losing end of a copyright suit. The "gotcha" you fear would not really work. At the least, it hasn't; The RL license is not new, there's a ton of code out there under it, and has been for a while. If the lawsuits you fear were happening, they'd certainly be making news on slashdot.

Danger

[Brutal_One (682848)]

The danger with the reference license is it then let's Microsoft say that an alleged copyright infringer had the access to see their code and copy it. As far as my knowledege of copyright goes, it seems that the alleged need only have a similar product and access to the original, whether they copied it or not, to prove infringement. Infringement does not have to be line for line copying either, even if you change lines here and there, copyright ownership assigns the copyright on the original as well as any derivatives. Where I a code monkey on an OSS project, I would definitely stay away from any code that Microsoft might throw out there to avoid any issue.

But will they be USED?

[starseeker (141897)]

These are just three more text files unless they are used to release source code. Obviously the last one isn't of interest - will they ever use the other two for anything non-trivial?

We would but...

[truthsearch (249536)]

We would, but they have Akamai distribute their load across thousands of linux servers to avoid DDOS attacks. Ironic...

Re:DHCP Lease renewal fail's again

[LaminatorX (410794)]

If that reference had been available 5 years ago, millions of people with DOCSIS compliant cable modems wouldn't have had to suffer through MS's bass-ackwards DHCP handshaking. Especially if it's NT4 back-end + Cisco/Arris DOCSIS. No IP for you!

MS's look but don't touch liscences are textbook "embrace-extend" moves though.