So, aparently Google's Open Source Program Manager Chris DiBona doesn't appear to keen on Microsoft wanting to get their permissive license approved as an open source license. According to DiBona, Microsoft should:
Stop using the phrase 'Shared Source'
Be forced to clearly advertise the effective license on their products to avoid confusion between proprietary and open source products
Agree with a ban on patent-lawsuits
Agree not to abuse their desktop monopoly by bundling the open source software with the OS.
None of these requirements, of course, are part of the
Open Source Definition, but that doesn't stop Chris. In fact, he's pretty sure that the whole deal is just an attack on the open source world, disguised as a friendly gesture, and states that 'If Microsoft refuses to comply with the extra demands, that's
the best evidence that they have a hidden agenda.'
Bill Hilf, in turn, states that the license complies with the OSD, and adds that Google's open source reputation isn't all that spotless. Looks like the mud slinging is effective immediately.
source. (In Dutch, can't find an English one yet.)
When Google returns to the community the changes it makes to the kernel and other programs in order for it to function the way it does, then I'll start listening to google about open source issues
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.