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

[Wilson, Andrew]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

>> Perhaps the MS-PL license was not
>> accidently named and appropriately categorized as a permissive weak-copyleft
>> open source license.
>
> Where is it categorized as copyleft (besides the FSF list)?

MS-PL was categorized as copyleft during the discussions on
OSI approval.  That was actually one of the key arguments in
favor of approval, since a weak copyleft, permissive license
is non-duplicative of BSD/MIT/Apache et al.  Were it not read as
weak copyleft, I doubt it would have been approved.  Certainly,
the intent of 3(D) appears to be that MS-PL applies to any source
derivatives of an original MS-PL work
(and thus such derivatives could not, for example, be GPL'd).

Back on the original topic, I don't see any reason to believe
BSD or MIT code could not be combined with MS-PL code.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center