For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
> 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.

Yes, others in this case being the copyright holder of the MS-PL code.

> He explicitly states that it does not apply if you are the copyright holder to a specific bit fo source code.

Yes.  What this means is, if you independently wrote and hold copyright
for the MS-PL code, you can put it under MS-PL/GPL/MPL/EPL/RPL/APL/MIT ,
or whatever fanciful combination you want.  That's obvious.

  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.

And only that license, meaning MS-PL code can't be part of a work
licensed under license A.

Matt Flaschen