For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

IANAL, etc.  Maybe someone should hire a lawyer to send a writeup of the
concepts under this discussion here, however.

Do you disagree that:
1)  Copyright licenses are additive (i.e. one gets the sum of permissions
from *all* copyright licenses granted to one for a given work)?
2)  Only the copyright owner or his/her agent can grant licenses or issue
restrictions?
3)  Only the copyright owner or his/her agent can enforce violations of
copyright licenses?

On 8/22/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> distribute
> >>> 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
> license
> >>      (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?
>
> 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
> forbidden
> under BSD (such as removing the copyright notices, or suing the original
> authors)
> is permitted.



I am listening.  However, my points aren't being answered.  I hear the same
"this is how it works" mantra repeated over and over (always preceded with
'IANAL'), but no discussion over the points.  If you want to convince me,
address my points.  The issue is this:

The issue is whether what you are proposing is even allowed under copyright
law.  I think we both have the same reading of the BSDL and the MS-PL
(permissive grants to use/distribute the work provided that certain broad
conditions are met).  Where we disagree is whether what you propose is
allowed under larger legal frameworks absent a clear transfer of copyright
*ownership.*  In short, I think that no amount of adding licenses would
allow me to go after someone for infringing any copyright licenses on
sections of code which I had merely included with the permission of the
copyright owner.

And since licenses are permissive grants (rather than restrictive
contracts), adding licenses has no effect anyway since I cannot remove
conditions placed on the work by the original copyright owner.  The original
section of code is *still* only licensed under the original terms even if
the larger work (and even my changes) may grant different permissions for
the aggregate.

If I am wrong on any of the above points, please point me to where I am
wrong and provide resources to back up your point.

For more detail:

Someone owns the copyright to a section of code, a work as a whole, etc.
The copyright owner and the copyright owner alone can issue permissive
grants to use that work in ways otherwise prohibited under copyright law.
This is *separate* from the rights granted in such a license because it
*requires* assignement of copyrights to the licensor and such language is
lacking from the BSDL (if it were not, then one could remove the license,
etc. because one would have the permission to change the terms under which
it was distributed).

Those permission grants are "copyright licenses" and they are additive.
Neither the GPL nor the BSDL is a set of restrictions, but rather a
permissive grant to do something that otherwise would be restricted by law.
Only a copyright owner can make such a grant so the fact that it is not
forbidden in the BSDL does *not* mean you can do it.

In this view, the GPL does not require passing on restrictions to original
components of derivative works.  It only requires granting rights such that
the derivative work could be used in all cases as if it were under the GPL.
Nothing prevents a superset of rights from being granted.

  Yes, adding another license in a derivative of BSD code
> is permitted
> as long as said license doesn't violate the short list of
> thou-shalt-nots in BSD.



But it requires copyright transfer rather than license.  Therefore it is
still forbidden because copyrights are not effectively transferred.  I could
be wrong.  IANAL, but I thought that only copyright owners (not mere
licensees) could dictate such terms.  If I am wrong on this point, please
educate me by pointing me in the direction of resources which prove it.

That's what makes it permissive, for crying out loud.



No.  WHat makes it a permissive license is that a) it does not mandate a
license for derivative works and b) does not require that you publish the
source code for binaries you create.  It does *not* transfer copyrights to
an extent required for one to tell people what they can do with code you did
not create, however.


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.



The issue is not the BSDL.  It is whether what you are proposing is even
allowed under copyright law.  I think we both have the same reading of the
BSDL a permissive grant to use/distribute the work provided that certain
broad conditions are met.  Where we disagree is whether what you propose is
allowed under larger legal frameworks absent a clear transfer of copyright
*ownership.*


>   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.


Does it?  As long as the rights are a superset of the rights granted (since
licenses are additive) under other licenses, this is moot.  My reading of
the MS-PL does *not* extend to altered portions of the code or derivative
works.

I.e. the question of adding the GPL to BSDL code is a moot question because
nothing in the BSDL prevents you from adhering to the terms of the GPL if
you want to.  The GPL restrictions do not extend to BSDL code that is merely
included in the work with the permission of the copyright owner (i.e. under
the terms of the BSDL  because licenses are additive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070822/0e61188b/attachment.html>