BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Apr 17 21:15:33 UTC 2009
Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> 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.
What is your definition of copyleft? As stated, mine follows (in
particular the first sentence of) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ . In my
opinion, MS-Pl does not meet that definition.
More information about the License-discuss