For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

Nils Labugt elabu at
Sat Aug 18 10:23:06 UTC 2007

lør, 18.08.2007 kl. 01.34 -0700, skrev Michael R. Bernstein:
> As far as I can tell, the MS-PL and MS-CL licenses aren't even
> compatible with each other, in either direction.
> When we talk about 'license proliferation' as a problem, it's important
> to note that aside from the annoying confusion that the number of
> licenses per-se engenders, the real problems are side effects such as
> immiscible codebases.
> This Highlander[1] requirement deliberately and explicitly cranks the
> imiscibility up to eleven, for no good reason I can see.
> In the spirit of license-discuss, where it is not uncommon to suggest
> general improvements to submitted licenses even if they are not strictly
> required for OSD-compliance, I want to know if Microsoft is willing to
> improve these licenses by changing 'you may do so only under this
> license' to 'you must do so under this license' or similar phrasing in
> order to leave the door open for compatible licenses and dual-licensing.

Some of us wants to license our code under a permissive license, and
also wants our code to *remain* under a permissive license. Isn't that a
legitimate wish?

There seems to be an attitude of many around here that one should go to
great lengths to satisfy those who wants strong "copyleft" terms, while
a desire to prevent others from adding new restrictive terms is frown
upon. And this license permits linking to code under different licenses,
doesn't it? Unlike GPLv3.

Nils Labugt

More information about the License-discuss mailing list