Microsoft capitulates to the OSI, gets horse-whipped for its troubles
I really, really don't understand this. I understand that Microsoft has a history of aggression against open source, as Chris DiBona wrote recently on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) license-discuss e-mail list. I compete with Microsoft and have for many years. I get that Microsoft has been bad.
But discrimination is explicitly against the OSI's Open Source Definition, as Bill Hilf noted in responding to criticism from Google's Chris DiBona on the e-mail thread:
You're questioning things such as Microsoft's marketing terms, press quotes, where we put licenses on our Web site, and how we work with OEMs--none of which I could find at http://opensource.org/docs/osd. If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to--and I have a number of questions for you about Google's use of and intentions with open-source software as well. But this is unrelated to the OSD compliance of a license, so I will do this off-list and preferably face-to-face or over the phone.
I understand that Microsoft may be using the OSI's license approval process to its own ends, and potentially ends that may be anti-open source. I'm still not sure, however, that it's appropriate to treat an incoming license from Microsoft any differently than one that comes from Linus Torvalds.
For similar reasons to why I don't agree with preemptive bombing of Iraq without a clear provocation, I also don't believe it's right to preempt Microsoft's engaging in the OSI license-approval process. And yes, the analogy really is apt, except that people died in the first situation and no one will die from Microsoft having a few OSI-approved licenses.
In short, I believe that good laws (or, in this case, good licensing terms and policies) don't look into motives. They look to actions. U.S. criminal law judges people for what they do, not what they thought of doing or even of what they wanted to do. Without an act, there is no crime.
I personally believe that it is better to engage Microsoft than to shun it. More importantly, I don't believe in discrimination of any kind...even of "bad people."
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is chief operating officer at Canonical, the company behind the Ubuntu Linux operating system. Prior to Canonical, Matt was general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, an open-source applications company. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
- I appreciate hearing back from you ...
- by mondegreen August 20, 2007 8:37 PM PDT
- with regard to my comment. I'm a little unsure, however, about what you refer to as the OSI's "principle of non-discrimination". As far as I can tell, it's a requirement for the licenses it approves but not a part of any "charter" pertaining to the organization itself.<br /><br />I looked around on the OSI web site and did not find a charter, but I did find some bylaws. In addition to approving licenses, the bylaws require that the OSI shall "educate the public about the advantages of open source software".<br /><br />To lend its good name to a M$ license without taking into account M$'s nature and history would mislead, not educate the public. Let's face it, M$ is a corner case. Sui generis. A monopoly. One of a kind. You ignore that at your own peril.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)