MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 8/23/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > If one is *required* to restrict, why are additional permissions
> > specifically excluded from the terms that can be removed?
>
> They're not excluded.  It also says "When you convey a copy of a covered
> work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that
> copy, or from any part of it."


I believe that this is misleading.  The requirement is clear that a lack of
right to remove that permissive bit is not an obstacle as immediately after
your excerpt is:

" (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in
certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional
permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have
or can give appropriate copyright permission."

Matt Flaschen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070823/04354b80/attachment.html>