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

[Chris Travers]

Hi Michael,
Thanks.  You are right about the GPL :-(

On 8/23/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > The requirement is clear that a lack of
> > right to remove that permissive bit is not an obstacle
>
> What I think is an obstacle is the rule against applying another license
> to a source code derivative work of MS-PL code.


We disagree here, but...

as immediately after
> > your excerpt is:
> >
> > " (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in
> > certain cases when you modify the work.)
>
> This says a requirement /*to*/ remove the permission is not an obstacle.
> It doesn't say a requirement /*not to*/ remove the permission is not an
> obstacle.


You appear to be right here.  Ouch. Talk about overreaching :-(  I hope
*somebody* stands up against this sort of copyright abuse.....

This effectively means "you can only include works under this license which
you can relicense under terms with identical *restrictions* to this license"
by this reading :-(

I asked for facts, and someone finally showed me enough to convince me :-(

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070823/b1ad1270/attachment.html>