While welcoming GPLv3 and LGPLv3 as OSI approved licenses, Roberto Galoppini sends a clear message to OSI board in response to Eric Raymond’s comment:
A license is a license, it is definitely not matter of spirit!
Nobody can disagree with Roberto here: if you look at licenses only then there is no spirit to take care of, only check its language against the requirements of the OS definition (of the four freedoms, fwiw). Regarding the Microsoft licenses, FSFE has already blessed some of them when they were announced.
But the real question is: who cares if the licenses are technically free (or open source) when they are only the tool to extend Microsoft’s power on the market with patent agreements, like the deal with Novell?
Free or not, open source or not, shared source licenses are not going to help the free/libre open source movement, so why should OSI approve them?
This is the most important question to answer: isn’t it about time for OSI to reconsider its mission?