<!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 size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>The phrase "the software" as used in the Ms-PL and
Ms-CL is a shortened form of "the accompanying software"
and means the software that was provided to you under that license.
This includes both the source code form and compiled or object code
form.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><FONT size=3>As has been noted on this thread, Microsoft uses other source
code licenses as well. Although some in the open source community are
familiar with these other licenses, many are not. It is Microsoft's intent
that the Ms-PL and Ms-CL submissions to OSI be evaluated on their own terms, not
based on interpretations or opinions relating to other licenses.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3>Regards,<BR></P></FONT>
<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>
<P><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: zbowling@gmail.com [<A
href="mailto:zbowling@gmail.com">mailto:zbowling@gmail.com</A>] On Behalf Of Zac
Bowling<BR>Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:30 AM<BR>To: Thatcher, Jim E.
(Woodcock Washburn)<BR>Cc: Donovan Hawkins; 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>Hi Jim,<BR><BR>I'm know as one
of main contributors to the Mono Project that using code licenced under the
Ms-PL and possibly Ms-CL is likely.<BR><BR>So last week, I had a paralegal at
work that handles the licencing issues on our projects there and my lawyer
(although he is not a specialist in IP issues) go over it and from all of our
interpretations of the licence we all came to the same conclusion which is
directly opposite to what you say in Q2 and Q3 here.<BR><BR>The text about "any
portion of the software" is unclear. Does it mean any portion of the combined
work or any portion of the original work? Saying "any portion of the software"
led us to believe that it was the combined work. The text about releasing under
a compatible licence if you release in binary form only help add the
confusion.<BR><BR>I blogged the issues of using Ms-PL on my blog about a week
ago based purely on our combined interpretation. <A
href="http://zbowling.com/blog/2007/08/14/microsoft-to-make-ms-pl-and-ms-cl-osi-compliant/">http://zbowling.com/blog/2007/08/14/microsoft-to-make-ms-pl-and-ms-cl-osi-compliant/</A><BR><BR>Would
it be possible to clarify this in the text of the licence?<BR><BR>Zac
Bowling<BR><A href="http://zbowling.com/">http://zbowling.com/</A><BR><A
href="http://mono-project.com/">http://mono-project.com/</A><BR><BR>On 8/24/07,
Thatcher, Jim E. (Woodcock Washburn) <jthatcher@woodcock.com>
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> As others have noted, Microsoft
took a stab at addressing<BR>> compatibility of Ms-PL with other licenses in
the text Mr. Hawkins<BR>> included below from Jon Rosenberg's initial
submission of the license.<BR>> However, there have been specific scenarios
posed in this discussion<BR>> that could benefit from additional
clarifications. I'll try to provide<BR>> that clarity in the FAQ
below.<BR>><BR>> Q1. Can I combine source code licensed under Ms-PL with
non-Ms-PL<BR>> source code?<BR>><BR>> A. Yes. The Ms-PL-licensed source
code will need to remain licensed<BR>> under the Ms-PL, but the other source
code can be under any license.<BR>><BR>> Q2. Do I have to use the Ms-PL
for changes I make to Ms-PL source<BR>> code?<BR>><BR>> A. The source
code that constitutes "any portion of the software"<BR>> needs to remain
under the Ms-PL, but your changes can be under any<BR>> license. If you
really wanted to track changes within a source code<BR>> file at the "lines
of code" or "bytes" level the Ms-PL terms would not<BR>> prevent you from
making your changes to the Ms-PL-licensed source code<BR>> available under
some other license.<BR>><BR>> Q3. Can I distribute source code under both
the Ms-PL and another OSS<BR>> license?<BR>><BR>> A. If you are the
copyright holder of the source code you can license<BR>> it under any terms
you choose, including choosing to license it under<BR>> more than one
license. You can license your source code under both the<BR>> Ms-PL and any
other license you choose. However, if you are not the<BR>> copyright holder
(and you don't have permission from the copyright<BR>> holder) you may not
offer source code that was licensed to you under<BR>> the Ms-PL to others
under another license.<BR>><BR>> Q4. Can I use source code licensed under
another OSS license in a<BR>> project that I release under the
Ms-PL?<BR>><BR>> A. That depends on the terms of the other OSS license
under which that<BR>> source code was licensed to you. If it allows you to
redistribute the<BR>> source code under any license terms you choose, then
you can choose to<BR>> apply the Ms-PL to that source code in addition to
your own source<BR>> code when you release the project.<BR>><BR>> Q5.
Can I use source code licensed under the Ms-PL in a project that I<BR>>
release under another OSS license?<BR>><BR>> A. That also depends on the
terms of that other license. If it allows<BR>> portions of the source code to
be provided under a different license,<BR>> then you can use the
Ms-PL-licensed source code and redistribute it<BR>> under the Ms-PL, and use
the other OSS license for the source code you<BR>> write.<BR>><BR>> Q6.
What about the GPL? Can I use Ms-PL-licensed code in a GPL<BR>>
project?<BR>><BR>> A. You should consult your own attorney to answer that
question for<BR>> you. I'm happy to explain what I and Microsoft understand
the Ms-PL to<BR>> mean, but you shouldn't rely on my interpretation of other
licenses<BR>> without validating that interpretation with your own attorney.
The way<BR>> I read the GPL you may be able to use Ms-PL-licensed code
in<BR>> conjunction with GPL-licensed code as long as the Ms-PL-licensed
code<BR>> (1) is contained in "identifiable sections … not derived from
the<BR>> [GPL-licensed] Program", (2) "can be reasonably considered
independent<BR>> and separate works in themselves" and (3), " you distribute
them as<BR>> separate works".<BR>><BR>> Q7. Then this really isn't a
"permissive" license, is it?<BR>><BR>> A. It's clear from this discussion
that the term "permissive" in this<BR>> context has a specific meaning to
many. This is not really a legal<BR>> issue, but the business folks at
Microsoft have heard this feedback,<BR>> and will continue to listen to the
community to understand the issues<BR>> that matter most to developers.
Microsoft will carefully consider the<BR>> concerns that have been raised
regarding the title of the Ms-PL. Best<BR>>
regards,<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Jim Thatcher<BR>> Of
Counsel<BR>> Woodcock Washburn LLP<BR>> 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>>
www.woodcock.com<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:<BR>> 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<BR>> >> too 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<BR>> the binary distribution case, and hope that he will
also be able to<BR>> shed some clarifying light on the source distribution
case.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Having said that, Jon Rosenberg (the Microsoft rep
who posted the<BR>> MS-PL for consideration here) also posted a small FAQ at
that time<BR>> which answered the question fairly clearly:<BR>><BR>> "*
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?: No. <BR>>
The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software<BR>>
in source code form, you may do so only under this license..." This<BR>>
restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public<BR>> License
that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any<BR>> Source Code
version that alters or restricts the applicable version of<BR>> this 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<BR>> of 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<BR>> NOT allowed if they violate
section 3, which says "If you distribute<BR>> any portion of the software in
source code form, you may do so only<BR>> under this license..." The FAQ
answer reinforces the fact that<BR>> distribution of "any portion" includes
when part of a derivative work<BR>> (a "different piece of
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<BR>> developed
available to their users (i.e. other developers etc). A<BR>> design
goal of the MS-PL is to allow developers to choose to ensure<BR>> that the
specific rights in Section (2) continue to be available to<BR>> downstream
developers and users through generations of adoption and<BR>>
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<BR>> restrictions downstream of MS-PL code. Since
you rather obviously<BR>> cannot place FEWER restrictions on it, your only
option is to place<BR>> identical restrictions (ie, using the
MS-PL).<BR>><BR>><BR>> So lines of source code released under only
MS-PL by their original<BR>> author can never find themselves under another
license by any means<BR>> (though their compiled binary representation can).
Attempting to<BR>> create a derivative work that places those lines of code
under another<BR>> license (when they are within the derivative work)
violates section<BR>> 3(D) and thus violates your license to create said
derivative work.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Whether there is some clever way to
legally keep pure MS-PL code<BR>> distinct from pure BSDL code in a project
that generates a single<BR>> executable is perhaps a more complicated legal
question (though<BR>> linking is certainly valid). However, requiring a
technical<BR>> restriction of keeping the code distinct (often an
impossible<BR>> restriction depending on your needs) is probably not what one
would<BR>> call "compatible". I pity any developer who would saddle
their<BR>> 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>><BR>><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Zac Bowling<BR><A
href="http://www.zacbowling.com">http://www.zacbowling.com</A><BR>---<BR><BR>I
support Mozilla Firefox. <A
href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1">http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1</A><BR><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>