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
Sat Aug 25 00:57:26 UTC 2007

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Thatcher, Jim E. (Woodcock Washburn) wrote:

> 		Q2. Do I have to use the Ms-PL for changes I make to
> Ms-PL source code?
> 		A. The source code that constitutes "any portion of the
> software" needs to remain under the Ms-PL, but your changes can be under
> any license. If you really wanted to track changes within a source code
> file at the "lines of code" or "bytes" level the Ms-PL terms would not
> prevent you from making your changes to the Ms-PL-licensed source code
> available under some other license.

So a derivative work must be licensed either under the MS-PL entirely or 
under a "mixed" license where different parts of the code are licensed 
differently (what I originally called a "Frankenlicense").

> 		Q7. Then this really isn't a "permissive" license, is
> it?
> 		A. It's clear from this discussion that the term
> "permissive" in this context has a specific meaning to many. This is not
> really a legal issue, but the business folks at Microsoft have heard
> this feedback, and will continue to listen to the community to
> understand the issues that matter most to developers. Microsoft will
> carefully consider the concerns that have been raised regarding the
> title of the Ms-PL.

I think there was less confusion over the meaning of "permissive" and more 
confusion over the interpretation of the MS-PL (which you have now cleared 
up, with our thanks).

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