<!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><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><FONT size=3><FONT size=3>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>As others have noted, Microsoft
took a stab at addressing compatibility of Ms-PL with other licenses in the text
Mr. Hawkins included below from Jon Rosenberg's initial submission of the
license. However, there have been specific scenarios posed in this discussion
that could benefit from additional clarifications. I’ll try to provide that
clarity in the FAQ below.</FONT></P>
<DIR>
<DIR><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q1. Can I combine source code
licensed under Ms-PL with non-Ms-PL source code?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. Yes. The Ms-PL-licensed source
code will need to remain licensed under the Ms-PL, but the other source code can
be under any license.</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q2. Do I have to use the Ms-PL for
changes I make to Ms-PL source code?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. The source code that
constitutes "any portion of the software" needs to remain under the Ms-PL, but
your changes can be under any license. If you really wanted to track changes
within a source code file at the "lines of code" or "bytes" level the Ms-PL
terms would not prevent you from making your changes to the Ms-PL-licensed
source code available under some other license.</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q3. Can I distribute source code
under both the Ms-PL and another OSS license?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. If you are the copyright holder
of the source code you can license it under any terms you choose, including
choosing to license it under more than one license. You can license your source
code under both the Ms-PL and any other license you choose. However, if you are
not the copyright holder (and you don’t have permission from the copyright
holder) you may not offer source code that was licensed to you under the Ms-PL
to others under another license.</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q4. Can I use source code licensed
under another OSS license in a project that I release under the
Ms-PL?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. That depends on the terms of
the other OSS license under which that source code was licensed to you. If it
allows you to redistribute the source code under any license terms you choose,
then you can choose to apply the Ms-PL to that source code in addition to your
own source code when you release the project.</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q5. Can I use source code licensed
under the Ms-PL in a project that I release under another OSS
license?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. That also depends on the terms
of that other license. If it allows portions of the source code to be provided
under a different license, then you can use the Ms-PL-licensed source code and
redistribute it under the Ms-PL, and use the other OSS license for the source
code you write.</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q6. What about the GPL? Can I use
Ms-PL-licensed code in a GPL project?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. You should consult your own
attorney to answer that question for you. I’m happy to explain what I and
Microsoft understand the Ms-PL to mean, but you shouldn’t rely on my
interpretation of other licenses without validating that interpretation with
your own attorney. The way I read the GPL you may be able to use Ms-PL-licensed
code <I>in conjunction with </I>GPL-licensed code as long as the Ms-PL-licensed
code (1) is contained in "identifiable sections … not derived from the
[GPL-licensed] Program", (2) "can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves" and (3), " you distribute them as separate
works".</FONT></P><B><I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>Q7. Then this really isn’t a
"permissive" license, is it?</FONT></P></B></I>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000>A. It’s clear from this discussion
that the term "permissive" in this context has a specific meaning to many. This
is not really a legal issue, but the business folks at Microsoft have heard this
feedback, and will continue to listen to the community to understand the issues
that matter most to developers. Microsoft will carefully consider the concerns
that have been raised regarding the title of the
Ms-PL.</FONT></P></DIR></DIR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left></FONT>
<DIV align=left>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in" align=left><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'"><FONT size=3>Jim
Thatcher<BR></FONT></SPAN></B><FONT size=3><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></FONT><SPAN
style="COLOR: #6a1d44; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><FONT
size=3> <BR></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3><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><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Narrow'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
Donovan Hawkins [<A
href="mailto:hawkins@cephira.com">mailto:hawkins@cephira.com</A>]<BR>Sent:
Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:48 PM<BR>To: License Discuss<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>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Matthew Flaschen
wrote:<BR><BR>> John Cowan wrote:<BR>><BR>>> I sincerely hope that
these reassurances will dispose of all bogus<BR>>>
incompatible-with-everything claims, though I know this list far too<BR>>>
well to suppose that we will actually hear no more of them.<BR>><BR>> He
said that binary derivative works containing MS-PL code could be<BR>> under
any license. I'm concerned about derivative works distributed<BR>> as
source code.<BR><BR>First, let me echo others' thanks to Mr. Thatcher for his
analysis of the<BR>binary distribution case, and hope that he will also be able
to shed some<BR>clarifying light on the source distribution
case.<BR><BR><BR>Having said that, Jon Rosenberg (the Microsoft rep who posted
the MS-PL<BR>for consideration here) also posted a small FAQ at that time
which<BR>answered the question fairly clearly:<BR><BR>"* Can MS-PL code be
redistributed under a different license?: No. The license states that "If
you distribute any portion of the<BR>software in source code form, you may do so
only under this license..."<BR>This restriction is similar to the restriction in
the Mozilla Public<BR>License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms
on any Source<BR>Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of
this<BR>License or the recipients' rights hereunder." The MS-PL
license<BR>explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under
a<BR>different license, regardless of whether the original code
is<BR>redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece
of<BR>software."<BR><BR><BR>In particular:<BR><BR>"...regardless of whether the
original code is redistributed...as part of<BR>a different piece of
software."<BR><BR><BR>John Cowen points out that derivative works are allowed,
but 2(A) says<BR>they are "Subject to the terms of this license, including the
license<BR>conditions and limitations in section 3." Thus derivative works are
NOT<BR>allowed if they violate section 3, which says "If you distribute
any<BR>portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under
this<BR>license..." The FAQ answer reinforces the fact that distribution of
"any<BR>portion" includes when part of a derivative work (a "different piece
of<BR>software").<BR><BR><BR>Chris Fagan (also of Microsoft) repeated the basic
idea of this more<BR>recently in a post here:<BR><BR>"Our intention in designing
the MS-PL is most clearly understood by<BR>thinking about how a developer may
want to make source code they developed<BR>available to their users (i.e. other
developers etc). A design goal of<BR>the MS-PL is to allow developers to
choose to ensure that the specific<BR>rights in Section (2) continue to be
available to downstream developers<BR>and users through generations of adoption
and adaptation."<BR><BR><BR>In particular:<BR><BR>"...to ensure that the
specific rights in Section (2) continue to be<BR>available to downstream
developers..."<BR><BR>That certainly suggests that you cannot place any
additional restrictions<BR>downstream of MS-PL code. Since you rather obviously
cannot place FEWER<BR>restrictions on it, your only option is to place identical
restrictions<BR>(ie, using the MS-PL).<BR><BR><BR>So lines of source code
released under only MS-PL by their original author<BR>can never find themselves
under another license by any means (though their<BR>compiled binary
representation can). Attempting to create a derivative<BR>work that places those
lines of code under another license (when they are<BR>within the derivative
work) violates section 3(D) and thus violates your<BR>license to create said
derivative work.<BR><BR><BR>Whether there is some clever way to legally keep
pure MS-PL code distinct<BR>from pure BSDL code in a project that generates a
single executable is<BR>perhaps a more complicated legal question (though
linking is certainly<BR>valid). However, requiring a technical restriction of
keeping the code<BR>distinct (often an impossible restriction depending on your
needs) is<BR>probably not what one would call "compatible". I pity any developer
who<BR>would saddle their fledgling open-source project with such a
burden.<BR><BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Donovan
Hawkins,
PhD
"The study of physics will always be<BR>Software
Engineer
safer than biology, for while
the<BR>hawkins@cephira.com
hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,<BR><A
href="http://www.cephira.com">http://www.cephira.com</A>
biological ones grow
exponentially."<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>