CadCrazy
in search of myself
Microsoft submitted its licences according to the published policies and procedures that dozens of other parties have followed over the years.
Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board has approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The basis of the approval was the consensus (though not unanimous) from the open source community that these licences satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition and should therefore be approved.
In August this year, Microsoft submitted the two of its Shared Source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for review and approval as open source licence. The formal evaluation of these licences began in August and the discussion of these licences was vigorous and thorough. There was a 'Q&A' session between Microsoft and community and Microsoft (and others) answered.
According to the OSI website, "Microsoft didn't ask for special treatment and didn't receive any. In spite of recent negative interactions between Microsoft and the open source community, the spirit of the dialogue was constructive and we hope that carries forward to a constructive outcome as well."
The Open Source Initiative is best known as the steward of the Open Source Definition and for its licence review process. But an open source licence is just the starting point. Open source depends upon code (which can be made better), community (which can be made larger) and ultimately a commitment to the idea, the more free the market is for innovation, the more innovation the market can deliver.
For those who are cynical about Microsoft's efforts (?) or bend towards Open Source, one thing for sure is positive -- Microsoft has not only accepted the role open source is going to play in future but also adhered to the 'terms and conditions' open source community demands. And, we can always say 'three cheers to those who bring this paradigm shift at Microsoft's core philosophy'.
Source
Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board has approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The basis of the approval was the consensus (though not unanimous) from the open source community that these licences satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition and should therefore be approved.
In August this year, Microsoft submitted the two of its Shared Source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for review and approval as open source licence. The formal evaluation of these licences began in August and the discussion of these licences was vigorous and thorough. There was a 'Q&A' session between Microsoft and community and Microsoft (and others) answered.
According to the OSI website, "Microsoft didn't ask for special treatment and didn't receive any. In spite of recent negative interactions between Microsoft and the open source community, the spirit of the dialogue was constructive and we hope that carries forward to a constructive outcome as well."
The Open Source Initiative is best known as the steward of the Open Source Definition and for its licence review process. But an open source licence is just the starting point. Open source depends upon code (which can be made better), community (which can be made larger) and ultimately a commitment to the idea, the more free the market is for innovation, the more innovation the market can deliver.
For those who are cynical about Microsoft's efforts (?) or bend towards Open Source, one thing for sure is positive -- Microsoft has not only accepted the role open source is going to play in future but also adhered to the 'terms and conditions' open source community demands. And, we can always say 'three cheers to those who bring this paradigm shift at Microsoft's core philosophy'.
Source
they are gr8 -FUDing with Linux infringes 235 patents and saying they accepts oss.its all reflects with ballmer's anger on Linux-and now they say OSS is good 
pigs does fly ofcorz in redmond.
