<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format --><FONT face=Tahoma>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman">I am responding to the issues raised
in this and related threads on this discussion at Microsoft's
request.</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman">The Ms-PL permits redistribution of
modified or unmodified versions of Ms-PL-licensed code <I>in object code/binary
form</I> under other licenses as long as those licenses comply with the
Ms-PL. The purpose of requiring that <I>source code</I> redistributions be
made only under the terms of the Ms-PL is to allow developers a choice of a
license that will ensure that their <I>source code</I> will only be distributed
under terms that they have explicitly chosen. </FONT></FONT> As this
discussion demonstrates, licensing terms can be interpreted differently by
different people, and some developers may prefer some terms over others.
The Ms-PL provides developers a licensing option that ensures their code will be
distributed initially and later under terms and conditions they have chosen and
agree with. </P>
<P align=left>By "complies with this license" the Ms-PL means that
your license must not purport to grant more rights to the Ms-PL licensed
software than are granted to you by the contributor(s). Your
license is not required to pass through all of the rights granted in
section 2, but it must include conditions and limitations at least
equivalent to those in section 3. Specifically:</P>
<UL>
<LI>
<DIV align=left>Your license must not grant any rights to use the
contributor(s)'s names, logos, or trademarks. It may, however, grant
rights to use your names, logos, and/or trademarks.</DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV align=left>If your license passes on any of the patent licenses granted
in section 2.(B) then it must also include a statement that any patent license
<I>from contributors</I> will end automatically if your licensee brings a
claim against a contributor claiming that the software infringes a
patent. If your license does not include a patent license then it does
not need to include a defensive termination provision. If your license
grants rights in your patents you are not required to apply a defensive
termination provision to your patents.</DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV align=left>If your license allows redistribution then it must require
redistributions to (1) retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are present in the Ms-PL portion of
the software, and (2) be made under a license that complies with the
Ms-PL (this recursion is intended).</DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV align=left>Your license must disclaim express and implied warranties and
guarantees, at least as to the contributors. If you wish to provide
warranties, those must be made by you, and not the
contributor(s).</DIV></LI></UL>
<P align=left>It is Microsoft's position that copyright/patent holders
have the right to offer to license their copyrighted/patented work under
whatever terms they choose, including offering the work under more than one
license. Developers who choose to use the Ms-PL may also choose to license their
work under other licenses, including other open source licenses (dual
licensing). By doing so the copyright holder would allow a recipient to
choose from among those licenses the license under which that
recipient will license the work from the copyright holder. The terms of
the selected license will apply to that recipient's use, modification,
distribution, etc. of that work.</P><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'"><STRONG>Jim
Thatcher<BR></STRONG></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Of
Counsel<BR></SPAN><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'">Woodcock Washburn
LLP</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">
<BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">999
Third Ave, Suite 3600<BR>Seattle, WA 98104<BR>206.332.1117
<BR>Fax: 206.624.7317 <BR>Mobile: 425-445-9535<BR>Email:
jthatcher@woodcock.com<BR></SPAN><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'">www.woodcock.com</SPAN></B><FONT
size=2><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: John Cowan [</FONT><A
href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org"><FONT size=2>mailto:cowan@ccil.org</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>]<BR>Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:54 AM<BR>To: Michael R.
Bernstein<BR>Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org<BR>Subject: Re: License
compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will
CPAL actually be _used_?))<BR><BR><BR>Michael R. Bernstein scripsit:<BR><BR>>
No, let me amend that: It bothers me that these licenses are<BR>>
incompatible with the entire universe of all other theoretically<BR>>
possible licenses, including future ones, regardless of their terms.<BR><BR>What
you say is not *false*, technically, but it's highly misleading.<BR><BR>It is
true that you can't take code licensed under the MS-PL and place any other
license on it directly. However, it is still possible to make a derivative
work that incorporates MS-PL licensed code (by clause 2A). Since you are the
copyright owner of this derivative work, you may license it under any terms you
like that do not actually contradict the terms of the MS-PL; that lets out the
GPLv2 because of the patent peace clause (3B), but allows many other licenses
from Apache 2.0 to BSD to proprietary.<BR><BR>(I'd like to see a proper analysis
of whether 3B conflicts with the GPLv3's rules on additional
terms.)<BR><BR>Furthermore, you may make a collective work incorporating the
MS-PL licensed code, since 2A also grants you the right of verbatim copying,
which is all you need for a collective work.<BR><BR>That, it seems to me, is all
you could possibly want in practice.<BR><BR>> It also bothers me that this
incompatibility extends not just to code<BR>> mixing and sublicensing, but
also to multiple licensing. Multiple<BR>> licensing, like forking, is an
unfortunate and infrequent necessity<BR>> that I don't think should be given
up lightly.<BR><BR>The normal multiple license issued by the copyright owner
(whether of an original or a derivative work) is disjunctive: that is, the
licensee may apply the terms of license A or of license B at his option. The
fact that licenses A and B contradict each other is no impediment. For example,
I license some code of mine under the GPLv2, the Apache 2.0, and the AFL 3.0
licenses: you may apply whichever one you like.<BR><BR>--<BR>The first thing you
learn in a lawin' family John Cowan<BR>is that there ain't no
definite answers
cowan@ccil.org<BR>to anything. --Calpurnia in To Kill A
Mockingbird<BR><BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>