The Software Freedom Law Center is panning Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (OSP) and recommending GPL users not rely on promises made in the OSP. SFLC's issues are as follows:
1. Irrevocable but only for now: There's no guarantee that future versions of a specification under the OSP will also be covered under the OSP. When Microsoft produces updates or new specifications, it's at their discretion whether the changes will also fall under the OSP.
Guess what. The same is true of the GPL: the copyright holder can say the same about future changes to specs, e.g. code, and decide not to release them under the GPL. It's the copyright holder's discretion if future revs fall under the GPL. All code already released under the GPL will of course remain GPL'd code.
2. OSP Covers Specifications, Not Code: Here I agree with the SFLC, the OSP doesn't go far enough. It only covers the specifications. You aren't granted any licensing and my interpretation is that you can only implement those specs as long as it's not in a commercial product, i.e., it has to be free or open source software.
3. No Consistency with the GPL: Yep, OSP is much more limited and narrow in its scope. And it doesn't allow the same freedoms as the GPL - I agree, OSP doesn't. Again, the OSP doesn't go far enough in my book. Here also the SFLC also points out that Microsoft takes a pot shot at the GPL saying "the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone", which is actually true. I see vendors implementing GPL code in their products improperly and GPL code writers creating their own interpretation of the GPL , like what derivative works means, such as has been attempted by open source Snort company Sourcefire.
What's the net-net of the SFLC's report? Is this FUD flinging or will SFLC's objections hold up? Hmm... I don't think Microsoft is trying to say OSP is their equivalent to the GPL, but OOXML is an extremely important test case for Microsoft's strategy to get their OPS covered specs adopted as standards. I believe this is one of the crutial underpinnings of Ray Ozzie's Microsoft Mesh strategy, and the real driver behind OSP.
OSP does need more clarification and no restrictions on implementations of OSP covered specs, or everyone will be hanging back, afraid Microsoft will sic the legal hounds on some unfortunate developer or company doing something Microsoft doesn't like.
RELATED LINKS: Open Souce section of The Converging Network blog.
Like this? Here are some of Mitchell's recent posts.
Revolutionaries Unlock iPhone 2.0 Apps"
Podcast: Security Mike Gets Serious About Security
Kidaro Acquisition Shot Across The Bow At Citrix Xen
IE Tab - IE Browsing In Firefox
Sun / Microsoft Interoperability First Step Of Many?
Check out Mitchell's Converging On Microsoft Podcast.
Also visit Mitchell's personal blog The Converging Network and SSAATY Podcast.
Visit Microsoft Subnet for more news, blogs, opinion from around the Web.
Sign up for the bi-weekly Microsoft newsletter. (Click on News/Microsoft News Alert.)
Mitchell Ashley is CEO and Chief Strategist of Converging Network, LLC, providing product and technology strategies to emerging technology companies. A serial entrepreneur, Mitchell has created many successful products and services in the networking, security, convergence, Internet and IT industries. In addition to blogging for NetworkWorld, Mitchell regularly blogs at TheConvergingNetwork and co-hosts the widely popular Still Crazy After All These Years podcast.
|
|
Point 2
in particular "i.e., it has to be free or open source software." This is incorrect. What it really means is that the specs can be implemented only in free (as in beer - no cost), and it doesn't matter if the code is Open or not.
What can't be done, under the terms of the OSP, is for the spec to be implemented in Commercial Open Source Software (in other words Free, as in Freedom Open Source Software, that is sold or profited from in some way).
You fail to understand a major underpinning concept of the GPL that Free means Freedom not no cost.
There's more to it than just a binary argument
Tracy Anne,
Thank you very much for your considered comment.
What most fail to recognize is that the GPL is not explicit as to "free as in freedom", and it does not say that you cannot use GPL code to make a profit, though many argue that unenforceable point.
Since the GPL is based on copyright law, the copyright holder has the right to limit their copyrighted materials, i.e. the GPL licensed software, if they chose. If other explicit restrictions are not placed on the GPL'd software by the copyright holder, then provided you abide by the GPL license and not create derivative software (applying known understandings about modifying, linking and embedding software as part of your own), you are free to make a profit from GPL'd software. Restrictions beyond the GPL license are how MySQL (now Sun), SourceFire and others have limited 3rd party companies from using their GPL'd code as openly as others could have without those added restrictions.
I don't buy the strict binary interpretation of Free as in beer (cost) vs. free as in freedom. In the world of software and business, those can be but are not always mutually exclusive. The complexities of the ways GPL'd code is used, and licenses are interpreted and enforced, aren't as simple as the binary argument that’s often presented.
Thanks -- Mitchell