BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sun Apr 19 03:00:02 UTC 2009
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
> 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  freedoms." It is not
required that all users of derivatives have the same freedoms, though
the FSF certainly prefers that.
More information about the License-discuss