For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bill Hilf wrote:
> One question I think is related to our license submission is your
> question 'b' below.  If the license-discuss community feels that
> having the MS-CL and MS-PL posted separately from our other Shared
> Source licenses, I'm happy to consider doing that, if that's
> important to the broader community.

I think this would be a very useful step.  If OSI approves these
licenses, it will be recognizing that part of Microsoft's shared source
licensing program is open source.  Microsoft could reciprocate by
clearly distinguishing this part from the rest.

  One of the reasons we continued
> to call it the "Shared Source" program was to acknowledge that these
> licenses had not been approved by the OSI, and some of our Shared
> Source licenses will not be submitted to the OSI.

I definitely appreciate that you have never called unapproved licenses
open source.  Chris may feel that the "shared source" name is too
similar, but I disagree; appropriate education can make the difference
clear.

I also agree that neither of these issues should affect OSI approval.

Matt Flaschen