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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at
Fri Apr 17 23:10:26 UTC 2009

I think we're starting to bore everyone else...

>From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at] 

>Okay, if you thought I meant, /You have to put the source on the same
>physical distribution medium as the binary/ I apologize for not being
>clear.  When distributing, it is sufficient to provide notice of the
>source location.

This differs a little from what the GPL seems to expect.  Verizon could not simply point upstream and say "get your source from the BusyBox site".  Actiontec had to host the source on their web server and perhaps Verizon as well (I forget).  

GPL 2 requires that you distribute both binary and source.  Not pass the buck upstream.  That seems the most common usage of the requirement to "distribute" source.  Certainly the MPL requirements seem less than those for GPL and doesn't have a distribution requirement for binaries from unmodified source.

I'm going to skip the detailed MPL discussion because I'm neither a MPL expert nor a lawyer.

>I'm not saying a official list.  The source could be anything: Lawrence
>Lessig, SFLC, Microsoft, Debian, whatever.

>But the real question is, "What is your definition of copyleft?" and who
>supports it.

Evidently Andy Wilson and Chuck Swiger...and whomever else they remember during those discussions.  How many folks are required and why isn't the FSF good enough?

My definition of strong copyleft is the same as yours.  My definition of "weak" copyleft is "something less than strong copyleft" and fuzzier because weak copylefts are "weaker" than strong copylefts in different ways.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list