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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> This differs a little from what the GPL seems to expect.

True...
> 
>> 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.

Matt Flaschen