For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
andrew.wilson at intel.com
Wed Aug 22 16:09:40 UTC 2007
Chris Travers wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> Chris Travers wrote:
>>> Note that I am *not* allowed to change the license of BSDL code I
>>> as part of my GPL'd application. How is the MS-PL different?
>> You can't remove the BSD license text. But you can add a
>> (sublicense). The latter is not true of MS-PL.
> What exactly do you think a license is? Under what right do you have
to add one to someone else's code?
> I always thought a license was essentially a grant of permission to do
something that might otherwise be restricted. To > add a license in
this case would mean? Are you adding permissions not granted by the
BSDL? Is that allowed?
> I don't think that one is allowed to add or remove permissions from
> code unless appropraite copyright have been assigned.
Chris ... many of us have tried to educate you on this issue, and you're
not listening. BSD is a permissive license. Everything that is not
under BSD (such as removing the copyright notices, or suing the original
is permitted. Yes, adding another license in a derivative of BSD code
as long as said license doesn't violate the short list of
thou-shalt-nots in BSD.
That's what makes it permissive, for crying out loud.
Your misreading of BSD, I suppose, would not be an issue, except
it is blinding you to a salient point about a license under
review, e.g. MS-PL. MS-PL is not permissive in the same sense
as BSD, MIT, or Apache, because it does not allow overlaying
a compatible license in a derivative work. It appears to be
a somewhat new class of license, e.g. a restrictive but non-copyleft
Intel open source technology center
More information about the License-discuss