License compatibility of MS-PL and MS-CL (Was: (RE: Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?))

[Chris Travers]

Just one clarification here.

Chris Travers wrote:
> Ok. here is my view of the sublicensing issue and why it doesn't apply 
> in this case.  In a literary work, an author may grant a publisher the 
> right to sublicense the work.  This means that the publisher would now 
> be able to grant additional permissions to third parties.  In most 
> cases, the BSDL code has been released publicly and this license 
> granted to the public as a whole.  In short putting it under the GPL 
> is redundant and moot (grants no further permissions nor takes away any).

The clarification I would add here (IANAL) is that there might be cases 
where the above does not apply.  For example if I don't make my code 
available to the public under the BSDL, the GPL might apply to my work 
as a real sublicense.  In short, the key here would be publication of 
the code to the public under that license.  In the absence of such 
publication, sublicensing could be a legitimate question.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070829/e11b270a/attachment.vcf>