BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
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.
More information about the License-discuss