Open-source discrimination

There is an ugly feeling growing against Microsoft in its attempts to have a few of its shared-source licenses certified as OSI (Open Source Initiative)-approved. The general sentiment is that OSI approval is for everyone except Microsoft.

I compete with Microsoft. My livelihood depends on beating Microsoft. I have worked for two companies that have been run over by Microsoft and its leveraging of monopoly power. I'm at least as familiar with Microsoft's legal and business tactics as most people, and probably more so than most. I've been on the losing end of Microsoft's monopoly power more than once.

But I don't believe in discrimination. Not even of the "bad guys."

Pamela Jones of Groklaw, whose opinion I value and with whom I normally concur, berated me for daring to suggest that we should welcome Microsoft's participation in open source:

Most of us do *not* want Microsoft to participate. I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it alters its negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and FOSS. And so should you.

I've heard similar comments from others in the industry. But last time I checked, the Open Source Definition prohibits discrimination. It certainly doesn't encourage it. Here's the language and the OSI's rationale:

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore, we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

This speaks of licenses, of course, but why should the process for submitting licenses be discriminatory while the licenses, themselves, are not?

Open-source licensing is about the license. This is one reason that Linus Torvalds chastised the Free Software Foundation over GPLv3: he felt that the FSF was making licensing political, while he liked GPLv2 because:

The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit for tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the Kool-Aid.

In short, you don't have to care whether it's a Microsoft license or an FSF license or an Oscar the Grouch license: the license speaks for itself.

Is there a chance that Microsoft will use its OSI accreditation to the detriment of open source? Sure. But this, however, does not excuse anyone in discriminating against Microsoft, or any other person or organization, that wants to participate in the open-source licensing and development process.

Sometimes we fetish over labels (I'm very guilty of this). There are risks in removing labels, of course, but far greater damage comes from discriminating against labels, rather than people.

I'm not naive when it comes to Microsoft, but I'm also not vindictive. Microsoft should be allowed to participate the same way any other organization does. Period. Open-source licensing does not look to motives, whether IBM's, Microsoft's, Richard Stallman's or Linus Torvalds'.

[tristanbob]

I agree with your point - see my post

I wrote an article with a similar theme. My intent was to highlight the fact that we should be pro-open-source, not antii-Microsoft.

Would you use Windows if it was GPL?
http://useopensource.blogspot.com/2007/04/would-you-use-windows-if-it-was-gpl.html

[umageller]

actually not quite accurate

PJ has complained about Microsoft not being a decent open source citizen for attempting to force open source's will, instead of becoming a true active participant, by the rules of open source.

I don't think she has ever argued Microsoft should be denied participation in the open source community, provided they follow the rules, the ethos and respect of our legal rights.

I don't think anyone in their right minds would prefer having Microsoft as an enemy on the other sidewalk if the chance of having them truly participating were real.

If this were real, anyway, there actually wouldn't be open source and the rest, no "us and them", there would only be open source.

In any case, it's by large Microsoft that's isolating itself with insults and casting shadows on the validity and legality of the open source community intellectual property.

Can you see the problem ?
Microsoft wants the benefit of open source, without the investment or commitment. The easy thing.
Does that match the spirit of "quid pro quo" so dear to us ?
I think not.

Licenses aren't sacred writing, they're tools to accomplish goals, they're made after the ethos and the open souce mindset, we're not slaves to licenses, it's the other way around. Licenses are clay we model after our ideas.

I don't blame PJ for scrutinizing Microsoft in high detail, I'd say it's vital that we all in the community do the same, preserving a critic spirit.

So far, and given the Novell predecent, and their hard work at poisoning every open standard our communities live by... it smells like there's a wolf dancing among lambs.