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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu] wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Youi are contradicting your self here: if you say that MS-PL and thus Foo
> are free, they MUST provide the sources on request not only for it, but also
> for all derivatives.

No, I'm not.  It is possible for a work to be free even if it's
derivatives are not.

> If not, the FooBar's editor is in violation of the licence he got from A for Foo.

That's not true, as Foo's license does not require downstream works are
free.

> Note: I don"t make any distinction here between free and copyleft, because
> you have yourself said that "free" was meant in the definition from the FSF,
> where it also means copyleft, unless there's an explicit restriction (like
> the one in the LGPL) clause to the generic FSF's copyleft requirements
> (found in the GPL).

No, the FSF does not equate free and copyleft.  As they say, "A program
is free software if users have all of these [4] freedoms."  It is not
required that all users of derivatives have the same freedoms, though
the FSF certainly prefers that.

Matt Flaschen