Linux.com

I think Hilf's reply, while probably truthful, makes Chris' point for him. Particularly the carefully worded part about: "...would benefit from having the licenses assessed as Open Source." I don't see anything there about open code, he's talking solely about the perception of the license, and the benefit of that perception to the authors of that "...large set of existing code...". In other words, an attempt by the wolf to get the sheep's clothing accepted. To illustrate, let me play a word substitution game... "..which would benefit from having OOXML assessed as an Open Standard...". Hmmm, why isn't everyone jumping on the bandwagon for that one? Microsoft is currently engaged in a campaign to undermine the perception of "open", and these license submissions are yet another front in that attack. Microsoft's definition of "open" is vague, and constantly changing to suit their immediate goals. Chris is absolutely right. We should not be looking solely at the clothing, which is what Hilf is pushing for, we need to look at who is wearing it as well.

#