MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
chris.travers at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 21:59:54 UTC 2007
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
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 :-(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss