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

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Sun Apr 19 00:25:18 UTC 2009

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> So it cannot be a free software (FSF), so the MS-PL cannot be claimed to be
> free, and not even "viral" (please explain this term, which is not defined
> in FSF licences). It is not even open-source for obvious reasons that
> there's no sources.

I never said FooBar is free.  MS-PL and thus Foo are free, but not
copyleft.  FooBar is not free, which is why MS-PL is not copyleft.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list