For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
brian at hyperreal.org
Sun Aug 19 03:36:02 UTC 2007
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Rick Moen wrote:
> OSI's role is merely to certify the licences that meet OSD criteria, and
> promote the concept of open source in general.
The OSI board's anti-proliferation efforts appear to take them one step
beyond certification though. It would seem to be that otherwise compliant
licenses could be rejected if they simply duplicate the terms or purpose
of an existing license. I don't know yet if there has been an explicit
rejection of a license up for certification, so I don't know if we've yet
established how different a new license needs to be. I would guess that a
license that copied the Apache license and replaced all instances of
Apache with some other abstract word would be rejected, no matter what the
compatibility matrix looked like. How about a license that had exactly
the same requirements as Apache, but restated them in a completely
different way? From there, what's the *smallest* difference in licensing
terms that would be worth adding yet another license?
Seems as though while MS-PL is not copyleft, MS-CL is, and thus that
"smallest difference" better be pretty big to offset the potential cost of
two universes of immiscible code, MS-CL-licensed and GPL-licensed.
More information about the License-discuss