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

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Apr 17 23:47:50 UTC 2009

Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> GPL 2 requires that you distribute both binary and source.  Not pass
>> the buck upstream.
> Actually, in point of fact, GPLv2 clause 3(c) lets you do exactly that:
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

But note that this is only for non-commercial distribution.  And in
GPLv3, it's only for /occasional/ (which isn't defined) non-commercial
distribution.  MPL has no such limitation.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list