For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 9/24/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is that you find major BSD-licensed community projects
> > (not single-vendor reference implementations) which will agree that
> > wrapping their code in the GPL without adding any copyrighted elements
> is allowed.
>
> My suggestion is that you *try* to stay on topic
> (which was MS-PL).


And my point that this specific element of the MS-PL is no different from
the BSDL is what I am still arguing.


  MS-PL does not
> allow covered code to be "wrapped" or otherwise intermingled
> at the source code level with copyleft code, with or without
> changes, period.


Not sure about that this is fundamentally different from the BSDL.  Mr
Wooley has pointed out that the MS-PL may be compatible with the GPL v2 if
certain distribution requirements are met, for example.  We *can* agree that
it is incompatible with the GPL2 in the same sense that the Apache license
2.0 is (but that the distribution requirements that Mr Wooley suggested
would seem to address these), and that it is incompatible with the GPL v3
for reasons which arguably also pertain to every BSD-like license out there
except possibly Mr Rosen's AFL.

The covered code itself can only be licensed under the MS-PL itself, which
*must* follow the code precisely as I argue the BSDL does.  It does *not*
mean you can't apply a different work as a whole license provided that it
does not govern that specific code.  My argument is that this is no
different than the BSDL with only one possible exception:

The license could be interpreted as to tie the license to specific code
portions.  Hence it would be safer under the MS-PL to note which sections
were under that license specifically.  This requirement does not seem to
pertain to the BSDL.

  Microsoft's outside counsel has made this admirably
> clear in his helpful responses to this list.  Your assertion
> that MS-PL is no different in this regard than BSD represents
> a reading of BSD which falls somewhere between outre and risible.



Well, the MS-PL may be *slightly* different in that one could read it as to
require tying the license to portions of the code under that license.
However, it is hardly the radical departure that you make of it.
Furthermore, I believe my interpretation is the one that most BSD-licensed
community-driven open source projects actually have of the license.  If you
can prove me wrong please do so.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070924/16c668a2/attachment.html>