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

[Zac Bowling]

> 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.
>

I came to the same conclusion. I think it has been mentioned a bunch
on this thread now but that is the biggest novel difference between
MsPL and the Modified BSD (aka MIT/X11) with the exception of the
patent clause, is that the original code must remain under the same
license. In my opinion, this idea alone is enough to say this license
is in new water here and meets the requirements of being different
enough that it survive the non-mass license proliferation goal of the
OSI.

MIT/X11 was compatible with GPLv2 only because you could effetely
re-license all the MIT/X11 code when distributing under GPL v2. With
MsPL you can not use MsPL code with GPLv2 code because you can't
change MsPL to GPLv2.

However this license should be compatible with GPLv3 with the new
license compatibility section. The GPLv3 says "When you release a work
based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added
parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate copyright
permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities
that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under this
License." The terms of the MsPL don't seem to conflict anywhere with
the terms of the GPLv3 that i can tell. (If that last paragraph said
"and" rather then "or" there maybe a problem.)

If the text of the MsPL under section D instead of saying:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of
the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under
a license that complies with this license."

Said something like:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
compiled, or object code form, you may only do so under a license that
complies with this license."

Or even as something as crazy as:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
this license with your distribution. At your option, you may also
re-license this software under the terms on the GNU General Public
License, version 2.0. If you distribute any portion of the software in
compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that
complies with this license."

Then we would not have an issue with GPLv2. However there should be
non issue with GPLv3 that I can see.

However with the clause was changed to the text in the first license,
then effectively it would be a truly permissive license or "gift"
license similar to BSD modified or MIT/X11 and not pass the mass
license proliferation goals of The OSI.

-- 
Zac Bowling
http://www.zacbowling.com
---

I support Mozilla Firefox.
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1