License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))

Donovan Hawkins hawkins at
Fri Aug 24 03:02:25 UTC 2007

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Donovan Hawkins wrote:
>> Whether there is some clever way to legally keep pure MS-PL code
>> distinct from pure BSDL code in a project that generates a single
>> executable is perhaps a more complicated legal question (though linking
>> is certainly valid).
> However, in my view this solution is not acceptable for the GPL, which
> requires the work as a whole to be GPL.

Very true. There is no meaningful way to combine GPL source code with 
MS-PL source code.

> I agree with your analysis,
> Donovan, but I would like the MS representatives to explicitly answer
> our question about whether it is GPL-compatible (and compatible with
> other source code licenses).
> This is very important, because permissive licenses are generally
> understood to be compatible with more restrictive source code licenses.
> If the answer is that MS-PL is not compatible in this way, I would
> appreciate a name change.

I completely agree on both counts.

Donovan Hawkins, PhD                 "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer                     safer than biology, for while the
hawkins at                   hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,                biological ones grow exponentially."

More information about the License-discuss mailing list