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

[Donovan Hawkins]

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 cephira.com                   hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com                biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------