Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:34:35 -0400

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (
>> As I said, it's OSD-compliant (I think everyone agrees on this).  But
>> that's clearly not the only criteria OSI uses.
> Is that so?  (That's not intended to be rhetorical.) I see nothing on
> that documents other requirements
> beyond procedural/review steps to assure OSD-compliance.

I'm talking about what they use, not what they're supposed to use.  I
can give many examples of times OSI has been reluctant to approve an
OSD-compliant license.  For instance, they held off on SimPL because it
was (mistakenly) believed incompatible with GPLv2.

Matt Flaschen