For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/16/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since the board is still considering this license, I wanted to provide some
> information from my research that might help with this decision.
>
> One of the main issues people have on this list is the idea that other
> existing permissive licenses allow sublicensing.

RMS calls it "relicence".

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html

"The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which
are compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released
under one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively,
permission to relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can
happen. Some licences explicitly say "you can also use this program
under the GNU GPL". In other cases, it's because the licence is so
permissive that to relicence it under the GNU GPL is permitted."

>
> I am not a layer, but I believe that this is wrong as a matter of intent
> licenses such as the BSD-licenses and the that it is also wrong as a matter
> of law.

GNUtians operate under their own GNU Law (with RMS and Eben in the
role of lawmakers and judicial authority at the same time). And under
GNU Law, BSDL allows relicensing. End of story.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                  -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor