The approved MS shared source as an open source license. The rub is later in this article they state the below:
Shared source is not open source by another name. Shared source is an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises. And to date, ‘shared source’ has been a marketing dud as far as Open Source is concerned.
If MS’s shared source isn’t open source why did you approve it as such? Their reasoning? They wanted to encourage MS to play nice. That’s amazingly short sighted for a firm that is supposed to be the watchdog for all open source licenses. MS has no intention of playing nice. MS’s shared source is not open source and the OSI needs to rescind their approval based on their own reasoning.