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 vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Would you allow a bad person to baby sit your kid? At Alfresco, don't you hire the very best people and decline to hire the others? Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that treating people differently? What did they teach you in law school? Most people understand that the ability and freedom to discriminate is the basis of liberty. Surely you favor liberty. Discrimination is only bad in certain, carefully circumscribed situations.
Aren't you simply saying you believe M$ was treated, unfairly? Aren't you really avoiding the real issue which is that M$ is a badly behaving 8,000 pound gorilla and therefore some people rationally think you have to treat M$ differently than others? So really, why do you think that shouldn't be done? (And please stow that "discrimination" nonsense.)
BTW, I enjoy your blog and your insights greatly, but his missive just seems boneheaded.
Would you allow a bad person to baby sit your kid? At Alfresco, don't you hire the very best people and decline to hire the others? Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that treating people differently? What did they teach you in law school? Most people understand that the ability and freedom to discriminate is the basis of liberty. Surely you favor liberty. Discrimination is only bad in certain, carefully circumscribed situations.
Aren't you simply saying you believe M$ was treated, unfairly? Aren't you really avoiding the real issue which is that M$ is a badly behaving 8,000 pound gorilla and therefore some people rationally think you have to treat M$ differently than others? So really, why do you think that shouldn't be done? (And please stow that "discrimination" nonsense.)
BTW, I enjoy your blog and your insights greatly, but his missive just seems boneheaded.
Recall these comments made to The Bangkok Post in May 2007:
"The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today" --Bill Hilf
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/2038250
Recall these comments made to The Bangkok Post in May 2007:
"The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today" --Bill Hilf
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/2038250
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2007/05/15/clarifications.aspx
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2007/05/15/clarifications.aspx
But I don't agree with treating Microsoft differently, even if we feel (and I have this sneaking suspicion) that its intentions are bad. Yes, I would never let a confirmed or suspected pedophile babysit my kids - never, ever, ever. But I'm also not an organization set up around the principle of non-discrimination. OSI is emphatically set up to approve licenses, not look into motives.
It is for the community, not the OSI, to police motives. I think the kind of feedback you're giving me here is excellent and needed. This is how we pressure Microsoft to play fair. But I don't think the OSI can do this without violating its charter.
But I don't agree with treating Microsoft differently, even if we feel (and I have this sneaking suspicion) that its intentions are bad. Yes, I would never let a confirmed or suspected pedophile babysit my kids - never, ever, ever. But I'm also not an organization set up around the principle of non-discrimination. OSI is emphatically set up to approve licenses, not look into motives.
It is for the community, not the OSI, to police motives. I think the kind of feedback you're giving me here is excellent and needed. This is how we pressure Microsoft to play fair. But I don't think the OSI can do this without violating its charter.
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".
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.
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)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".
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.