Pro open source blogger Groklaw has some interesting analysis on Microsoft’s attempt to get its “shared-sourced” license model validated by the open source community. Some note that some provisions in Microsoft’s license require code be run on Windows. That, Groklaw feels, not only violates the intent of open source, but could be its death knell. Groklaw writes:
“Unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know it, and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image. All that will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software. Personally, I hope that doesn’t happen. I have always seen the need for both, and I hope OSI has the vision to see what needs to happen next.”
However, others note that the two licenses Microsoft submitted do not restrict code to Windows. The issue they have is that it encourages “license” proliferation, which is bad for open source. Too many licenses, each with their own rules, makes it difficult to share code. From the viewpoint of the dispassionate observer, Groklaw’s point of view seems to be over dramatization. Open source doesn’t have to mean anti-Microsoft – even though in today’s climate it seems to be just that. Even if Microsoft wants to share code specifically for its Windows operating system under a specific license, that may not hurt the open source in the long run. Any movement to sharing code seems like it will ultimately strengthen open source as the de facto method of creating software. As for license proliferation, if the oversight of such a license is taken out of Microsoft’s hands, wouldn’t that keep Microsoft from the temptation to litigate gratuitously?
