I first thought this was an April Fools' Day joke that got e-mailed four months late, but it unfortunately seems to be true.
Baseball Prospectus is reporting that Pete Rose has signed an agreement providing for his reinstatement to Major League Baseball. Apparently the agreement does not provide for an admission of wrongdoing by Rose, the one thing that baseball had insisted on all along.
For the findings against Pete Rose back in 1989, check out the Dowd Report.

Bill James has written several times (most recently in the New Historical Baseball Abstract) that he believes the case against Rose is far weaker than most people believe. James' writings on the subject are unfortunately not available online. Click here for a piece criticizing James' assessments and here for a piece defending them (in the context of a review of an ESPN-produced "trial" on the question).

UPDATE: MLB has denied the report. The denial would be somewhat more convincing if MLB had any credibility, or if the spokesman didn't have a record of exceptional mendacity and incompetence (even by MLB's considerable standards).
Lee Sinins has the last word on the subject (quote comes from his e-mail newsletter):

With MLB's credibility, this statement is just as good as a confirmation of
Will's story. With their track record, MLB is on my list of at least 3
entities, of which I believe nothing from them until as the events prove
the statement to be correct. Occasionally it does happen, but until it
does, I don't believe it.
Actually, my first reaction to MLB's denial was, if Pete Rose was mentioned
in their statement, then there is the possibility that Rose doesn't even
exist. But, as recently as a day or two ago, I was watching an old episode
of Baseball Magazine on ESPN Classic (which, as an aside, is a show I'd
like to see returned to the air) and Sparky Anderson was discussing Pete
Rose's reaction to Game 6 of the 1975 World Series. So, since independent
evidence of Rose's existence exists, at least that part of MLB's statement
is believable.
I won't even insult Will Carroll by including any discussion of his
credibility in the same sentence.