For Approval: Microsoft Public License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
> 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,

I didn't say that wasn't allowed.  However, MS-PL was originally billed
as a permissive license.  Thus, it is supposed to be downstream
compatible with most licenses.  There has been some concern that it is
not, which explains the renaming.

> 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.

As I said, it appears to be compatible with NOSA.

Matt Flaschen