For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 9/24/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > I think you are misreading Mr Thatcher's response.  His response is
> limited
> > to the copyrights of others.
>
> Yes, others in this case being the copyright holder of the MS-PL code.


Note that the copyright on the MS-PL code only reaches to those elements in
the code which are protected by copyright.  It doesn't reach out into
everything else as well.

For example, if you write a poem and I use an excerpt from it in my novel
with your permission, I don't gain any right to tell people what they
can/cannot do with that excerpt.  That is still your call as the author.
This is no different really. Hence my statement that such MS-PL "excerpts"
might need to be identified as being governed under that license.


> He explicitly states that it does not apply if you are the copyright
> holder to a specific bit fo source code.
>
> Yes.  What this means is, if you independently wrote and hold copyright
> for the MS-PL code, you can put it under MS-PL/GPL/MPL/EPL/RPL/APL/MIT ,
> or whatever fanciful combination you want.  That's obvious.
>
>   Hence nothing in the MS-PL precludes that code from being in another
> work provided
> > that the source code licensed to you under the MS-PL remains under that
> > license.
>
> And only that license, meaning MS-PL code can't be part of a work
> licensed under license A.



You are under the misconception that the "work as a whole" license governs
the excerpt.  You as the "work as a whole" author don't automatically gain
copyrights over the licensed code merely because you used it with
permission.  The excerpt is still governed under whatever license (if any)
the original author released the work under.

Think of it this way:

Suppose I put together an anthology of various papers on, say,
Cryptography.  Suppose I give everyone permission to redistribute the
anthology verbatim (suppose also that I have the right to do this).  Now
suppose that one of these papers is released under the MIT license by the
author.  My license does *not* affect what you can do with this.  I haven't
sublicensed his/her work, but merely used it with permission in my own work
(and even if I have sublicensed under the MIT license, the MIT license
supercedes my license, so it is moot).  The MIT license and *not* my license
on the anthology governs that paper.

So I don't see a problem in this specific regard.  The GPLv3 compatibility
issues probably affect other permissive licenses too.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


Matt Flaschen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070924/45e0b352/attachment.html>