For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/29/07, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>  Do you have evidence "Permissive License" has a significantly different
> > meaning than "Academic License" in the FOSS community?  If so, I am
> > willing to discuss that with you.
>
> In the open source community, most of these distinctions are only known
> to a small number of people.
>
> However, the general public will make a better guess of the meaning of
> Permissive, and the term Academic is used by proprietary software
> vendors to imply a field of endeavour restriction on licences that do
> not permit redistribution.  I would think Academic would be unsafe on
> any open source licence from Microsoft, as they are already strongly in
> to discounted "academic" proprietary licensing.

http://www.microsoft.com/Education/Open.mspx

----
Microsoft Academic Open License
Updated: May 3, 2004

Microsoft Academic Open License is a smart choice for great value on
Microsoft software. ...
----

Grrr...

To Microsoft: I take my suggestion back. Keep the current name.

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