BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Apr 17 23:19:29 UTC 2009
Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> This differs a little from what the GPL seems to expect.
>> 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?
Because in this case, I think the FSF (or rather the one unknown but
well-intentioned person who updated that license list) is contradicting
their own definition (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/).
> 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.
Weak copyleft is no excuse for a weak definition.
More information about the License-discuss