BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Apr 17 14:32:57 UTC 2009

Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Given that MS-PL is itself a weak copyleft it would be an absurd
> position but not for the reasons you imply.  Logic based on false 
> premise can lead you merrily along some absurd paths.

MS-PL is viral (I use this in the neutral sense).  But it's not even a
weak copyleft (which is something like MPL or MS-RecL).  Copyleft
licenses require that source code is provided when binaries are
provided.  MS-PL has no such requirement.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list