The Open Source Iniciative (OSI) has approved two Microsoft license submissions: The Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The Open Source Definition was written after Debian Free Software Guidelines, also by Bruce Perens, and they have a lot in common.
What is Hasefroch pretending with this movement? It’s not that I trust them too much, so I just don’t think they won’t have a hidden intention, but then again, they might not have it this time, who knows. It might be just a marketing show, having two OSI approved licenses, but not using them to release any significant code, or maybe they’re discovering that Open Source/Free and Proprietary Software are not exclusive and each of them might have its space. Or maybe… it was “Embrace, extend and extinguish“, wasn’t it?
I’ve had a look at the licenses, and apart from some patent-related provisions, I don’t see anything in them that could make them non-DFSG-free, anyway. The difference between them is that the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) has a clause stating that you should release your modifications under the same license. Lets see what the future provides.