For Approval: Microsoft Public License

[Chris Travers]

First, as I have stated, I do not think that the MS-PL is "uniquely
incompatible" with other FOSS licenses.

For example, IANAL, but I read the external deployment section of Mr
Rosen's OSL to be incompatible with the GPL (all versions) because it
places the restriction that one must distribute the source to mere
users of the software while the GPL (any version you like) is clear
that this is not a requirement.

THe Mozilla Public License is also incompatible with a wide range of
licenses as well.  And one can read the GPL v3 (partcularly section 7,
paragraph 2) to be far more incompatible with other licenses that
either of these licenses.\

Compatibility questions were no bar to the GPL v3's acceptance and
shouldn;t be here either.  In fact, the GPL v3 is uniquely
incompatible with other licenses in a way that neither of these
approach.  Note that nobody has yet provided a real answer to what
section 7 paragraph 2 means for including BSDL components when the
notice of permission grant must be replicated for those files.  The
SFLC's official advice is to avoid the issue by ignoring that
paragraph and saying not to change the license on the files....

Now, for the Open Source vs OSI approved issue.  I asked about this
relating to PostgreSQL before.  The fact is that the PostgreSQL
variant of the BSDL is not approved by OSI and yet nobody cares that
they call themselves "The World's Most Advanced Open Source Database."
 Why the double standard wrt Microoft?  Should I submit the BSD
License, PostgreSQL Version to this list for approval?

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers