For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 9/24/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> This is simply incorrect.  If the work as a whole (in source code form)
> has a license, it must be MS-PL.  As Mr. Thatcher (Microsoft outside
> counsel) put it:
>
> "Can I distribute source code under both the Ms-PL
> and another OSS license?
>
> [...] [I]f you are not the copyright holder (and you don't have
> permission from the copyright holder) you may not offer source code that
> was licensed to you under the Ms-PL to others under another license."
>
> Saying the work as a whole is under license A but the MS-PL code is only
> MS-PL is clearly not allowed.


I think you are misreading Mr Thatcher's response.  His response is limited
to the copyrights of others.  He explicitly states that it does not apply if
you are the copyright holder to a specific bit fo source code.  Hence
nothing in the MS-PL precludes that code from being in another work provided
that the source code licensed to you under the MS-PL remains under that
license.  Hence my suggestion that this might require labelling MS-PL code
as such.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


Matt Flaschen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070924/826c4ad3/attachment.html>