Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:30:23 -0700
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:30:23 -0700
On 9/25/07, Zac Bowling <zac@zacbowling.com> wrote:
>
> Can't forget the patent license and revocation related text in Ms-PL.
> That is some what novel as well.
>
> In the end, license proliferation sucks but it seems that there are to
> many forces at play to successfully stop it.
>
> Oh well. We can just hire more lawyers to sort it all out. Not a big
> deal. We can afford them with all the money we make on developing all
> this wonderful F/OSS code.



Actually, I think we need a different structure to deal with license
proliferation and approval.  I have already made my suggestions elsewhere
but to summarize, I think we need to have a separate approval track for
license variations.  This way every time someone wants to solve a legal
concern, we don't have to ask about license proliferation, but we aren't
cluttered with 100000 separate license listings either.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/25/07, Zac Bowling <zac@zacbowling.com> wrote:
Can't forget the patent license and revocation related text in Ms-PL.
That is some what novel as well.

In the end, license proliferation sucks but it seems that there are to
many forces at play to successfully stop it.

Oh well. We can just hire more lawyers to sort it all out. Not a big
deal. We can afford them with all the money we make on developing all
this wonderful F/OSS code.


Actually, I think we need a different structure to deal with license proliferation and approval.  I have already made my suggestions elsewhere but to summarize, I think we need to have a separate approval track for license variations.  This way every time someone wants to solve a legal concern, we don't have to ask about license proliferation, but we aren't cluttered with 100000 separate license listings either.
 
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers