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

[Donovan Hawkins]

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