For Approval: Microsoft Public License

[Chris Travers]

On 10/9/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > I had a question that I hadn't seen answered.  The major exception
> > (other than name) that I saw was that MS-PL was "uniquely
> > incompatible". Had that been addressed and what does that mean?
>
> It means MS-PL code can't be incorporated into open source projects
> under some other licenses.



How is this more incompatible than the GPL v3 (which people say requires
"relicensing" the excerpts so that they are under the GPL v3 whatever that
means)?  I see no argument that can be made against incorporating BSDL
fragments into an MS-PL file, but such an argument can be made against the
GPL v3 (and the SFLC has not addressed the specific argument of what removal
of additional permissions to an arbitrary portion means in terms of license
compatibility).

> From a personal/immediate standpoint the other OSI license I would
> > want to be compatible with MS-PL is the NOSA license.
>
> You may be able to use NOSA (NASA Open Source Agreement) code within a
> mostly MS-PL project because of the Larger Work clause in NOSA.



Fors the NOSA prevent you from releasing your work as a whole under the
MS-PL?  If not, there is no case I can think of for incompatibility.

Note that the MS-PL is *more* compatible with the GPL v2 than the GPL v3 is.

IANAL, etc.

So I still have no idea what double standard allows people to say this is
"uniquely incompatible."

It is not more incompatible with other licenses than licenses like the GPL
v3, and the LGPLv3.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071009/0698e1f2/attachment.html>