More about licenses, Microsoft and OSI

I’m having problems submitting comments to Roberto’s blog, so I continue the discussion with him here, after his comment

The problem with Microsoft channel is that it’s a channel that (mainly) develops software on top of proprietary protocols and formats. Therefore I see the value growing only for Microsoft, if OSI approves these licenses. Just look at Moon/Silverlight deal between MS and Novell: who is safe using that *light? Only those that accept deals with MS like Novell did.

I’ll tell you what we need from MS, and that is not more licenses. We need them to stick to the requests from the EU Commission regarding interoperability. Only one week and we will find out about that too.

Besides, I don’t see the value in adding more licenses that mimic existing ones, like ASL, BSD and GPL, to the already long list of OSI approved licenses.

And while talking about Microsoft habits, here is Matt’s point of view:

there is good reason for criticism of Moonlight/Silverlight:

To the extent that it requires Microsoft patent approval to be effective (and it does, by Miguel’s own admission), it is shackled in its potential. Interoperability is to Microsoft what prostitution is to a pimp: a great source of control and income.

The whole post deserves reading The other 20% on Novell or, When interop isn’t | The Open Road – CNET Blogs