For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/28/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, my major point is that the SFLC article provides no reason to believe
> that MS-PL (MS-OL?) compatibility with the GPL v3 would be any different
> than compatibility with BSD-licensed code.

Actually, if you simply ignore their misleading attempts to subversion
on the bases of "totality" and "as a whole", SFLC article provides no
reason to believe that *MS-CL* (MS-RL) compatibility with the GPL v2
(v3 monster aside for a moment) would be any different than
compatibility with BSD-licensed code. Just stick to 2.3 (i.e. keep
modifications to aggregated works licensed as original, not applying
the GPL). And do the same for any other reciprocal license. So much
about GPL "incompatibility".

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