Subject: RE: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:30:10 -0700

 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:30:10 -0700
Chris Travers wrote:

> I am not sure I agree with this.  If, as I maintain, the BSD and even
the MIT licenses follow the source code elements*
> and the license cannot be divorced from those elements, then I am not
at all sure what makes the MS-PL 
> different from the BSD license. 

If your goal is to advocate approval of MS-PL as-is, you have painted
yourself
into a logical corner.  If OSI accepts your highly idiosycratic reading
of BSD,
MIT, and other permissive licenses and concurs
that they do not permit sublicensing and that MS-PL is
not innovative in this regard among permissive licenses, then
MS-PL is duplicative and should be rejected.  If OSI accepts the
prevailing view that
permissive licenses of the BSD/MIT variety do permit sublicensing,
then MS-PL (which explicitly, inarguably does not permit sublicensing)
is then not a permissive license in the classic sense, is
misleadingly named, and should be resubmitted under a more
accurate title.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center