BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
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.
More information about the License-discuss