For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Matthew Flaschen
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Thu Sep 27 03:03:41 UTC 2007
Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
> When I committed in my last posting to consulting the community on
> future license revisions, I really wasn't expecting that I'd be doing
> it this week. :-)
Thank you for your prompt response.
> We have also sought feedback from the hundreds
> of licensors who are using the Microsoft licenses today. They told
> us something quite different: that the Community License name did not
> adequately communicate the fact that this license was reciprocal.
I would agree with that, though I don't think there's any set meaning
for a "community license", so nobody would be misled.
> I would like to get all of your feedback on the following name
> revisions:
> * Microsoft Community License becomes Microsoft Reciprocal License
> * Microsoft Permissive License becomes Microsoft Open License I look forward to your feedback.
I think both of those are good names. Microsoft Reciprocal License is
very clear about the intention. Though Microsoft Open License is a bit
vague, that's okay. We have plenty of vague names already (Apache
License, General Public License, Artistic License, etc.). That just
encourages people to read the license (or a good summary) before making
assumptions. And since Microsoft Open License is OSD-compliant, the
"Open" itself isn't misleading.
Matt Flaschen
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list