MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
chris.travers at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 20:51:07 UTC 2007
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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss