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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Thatcher, Jim E. (Woodcock Washburn) (jthatcher at woodcock.com):
> 
>> As others have noted, Microsoft took a stab at addressing compatibility
>> of Ms-PL with other licenses in the text Mr. Hawkins included below from
>> Jon Rosenberg's initial submission of the license. However, there have
>> been specific scenarios posed in this discussion that could benefit from
>> additional clarifications. I'll try to provide that clarity in the FAQ
>> below.
> 
> Extremely helpful.  Thank you, indeed!
> 
> (I continue to recommend certification of both MS-PL and MS-CL, for 
> whatever that's worth.)

I agree on both counts.  However, it seems clear Jim agrees MS-PL code
can not really be part of a GPL project (certainly not with the GPL
project distributed intact).  This means MS-PL is not GPL-compatible
(and perhaps not compatible with other copyleft licenses), and thus I
would welcome a change in the title before approval.

Matt Flaschen