Subject: RE: For Approval: Microsoft Community License
From: "Jon Rosenberg (PBM)" <jonr@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:38:38 -0700

 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:38:38 -0700
You are correct.  The MS-CL simply adds one clause to the MS-PL.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:chuck@codefab.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:15 AM
To: Jon Rosenberg (PBM)
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Community License

Hi--

On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
> Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Community License to
> the OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license.  Microsoft
> believes that this license provides unique value to the open source
> community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and clearly delineated
> reciprocal terms.

Except for the addition of clause 3(a) containing a "weak" copyleft
provision, this MSCL seems to be word-for-word identical with the
MSPL.  The effect of 3(a) requires that changes to code under the
MSCL must be made available in source code form whenever that code is
redistributed as a binary, but does not require that other sources be
released or that it be convenient (or possible) for a user to replace
the source code in an existing binary with a changed version.

Thus, I think that the LGPL would be a better choice as far as end-
users are concerned, but, to the extent that an author might want to
make their software freely available but at least be able to see what
changes, improvements, or bugfixes someone has made if they use it in
their own binaries, this license provides that effect without
imposing obligations on completely separate source code which might
be used in combination with the MSCL-licensed software.

As with the MSPL, the MSCL seems to be fully compliant with the OSD.

+1.

--
-Chuck