19 Oct 2005
Microsoft has launched an attack on existing open source "licensing proliferation" claiming that the system is confusing and unnecessarily challenging for software developers.
Jason Matusow, director of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative, told vnunet.com that the large number of open source licences currently in use is counterproductive.
"I believe that there are 55 or 56 open source approved licences. These have come about because source code is somebody's property and they have chosen to license according to their needs. We believe that developers should license code as they see fit," he said.
"But the biggest challenges come from additional licences. Let's say I'm a developer and I want to take code from both Python and Apache, which are both covered by open source licences. Are there any licensing issues by mixing code covered by different licences?
"In this specific case I know that there are no issues, but different licences create conflicts and sometimes challenges. What are the implications of one licence with the next? We cannot answer for everyone, but we can make sure that our licences are simple and predictable."
In a bid to simplify its own source code licensing Microsoft today unveiled three newly drafted template licences for its so-called Shared Source Initiative, which is designed to give developers, customers and partners access to the source code for Windows and other software.
The Microsoft Permissive Licence is the least restrictive of the Microsoft source code licences. It allows developers to view, modify and redistribute the source code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes.
Under the Permissive Licence, developers may change the source code and share it with others, and can charge a licensing fee for modified work.
The Microsoft Community Licence is designed for use on collaborative development projects. This type of licence is commonly referred to as a reciprocal source code licence and carries specific requirements if software engineers choose to combine Community Licence code with their own code.
It allows for both commercial and non-commercial modification and redistribution of licensed software.
The final licence unveiled today is the Microsoft Reference Licence which only allows licensees to view source code. It does not allow for modification or redistribution.
Matusow said that Microsoft has "learned from the open source community" and has made some code and some projects available, many via open source-like licences and some via other means.
The firm pointed out that it has more than 80 source code offerings that span the Windows and Office platforms and include projects that the open source community is helping to develop, such as the Windows Installer XML project.
However, Matusow went on to deny that Microsoft has been forced to open up access to its code because of the fast growing popularity of open source offerings.
"I would disagree with the notion that we have been forced into making these licensing changes," he said. "Most people are not aware that in 1992 Microsoft was sharing the source code of Windows with key partners."
In conjunction with the three shared source licence types, Microsoft announced that eight Starter Kits for Visual Studio 2005 and the next version of the Windows CE Bluetooth Wrapper will be offered under its Microsoft Permissive Licence.
Latest stories from Operating Systems
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
SOFTWARE ENGINEER - BERKS - to £34k plus package WAREHOUSE...
We currently have a position for a Senior Project Manager...
JAVA DEVELOPER TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS / TMS...
We are looking for an experienced Software Business Analyst...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
But they just released more licenses
Meanwhile MS have released new shared source licenses which the FSFE think at first glance look like a giant step toward being their own copyleft licenses in the style of GPL or MPL
Posted by: Alec 20 Oct 2005
More complete BS from the giant with the big mouth...
The only thing confusing to Microsoft is the whole letting others look at the source code for FREE, and not being able to CLOSE the source whenever you want. Any software developer that is AFRAID of open source clearly has something to hide, be it self-serving code, or poorly written buggy vulnerable code. It's so easy to bark about and at anything that isn't done the same way as YOU do it... As always, Microsoft is soooo threatened by anything it can't control or steal, and charge money for.
Posted by: SmartITGuy 20 Oct 2005
MS complains of too many licenses and then adds three more, classic
title says it all, they just added three more, only two of which might "possibly" satisfy either the Free Software or OpenSource Software definition, yet still will not be compatable with the GPL, the license chosen for the overwhelming number of FOSS projects. Yet more embrace and extend from MS, this time aimed at splintering the FOSS code base by being GPL incompatable. Same old MS.
Posted by: Clifton Hyatt 20 Oct 2005
and MS's EULAs are somehow easier?
Nice piece of FUD from Microsoft. Microsoft cries wolf again. Microsoft is the one to talk about licence issues. Just to get their Windows Server 2003 running, you need to race around managing licences for everything. Their EULA's are written in confusing legalese and strictly limit user's rights. It's really a case of pot calling the kettle black on this issue. Sure, there are many OSS licences - but if a solution provider (such as Novell or RedHat) is managing this for a customer, then it's no real problem for any enterprise end user who values licensing issues. Perhaps for the developer who doesn't want to share changes to source code, the GPL can be restricting in that way, but considering GPLed software is free - the only people complaining are those who'd like to rip off OSS community.
Posted by: Nathan Butcher 20 Oct 2005
ms inovating
microsoft innovates yet again by copying open source licenses ....
Posted by: bob w 20 Oct 2005