Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Tobia Conforto <tobia.conforto@linux.it>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:30:52 +0200

Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
> I have a few new alternatives below for a rename of the Microsoft
> Permissive License on which I would like to again ask the community
> for feedback:
>
> Microsoft Free Reuse License
> Microsoft Open Code License
> Microsoft Simple License
> Microsoft Public License

I don't think Free Reuse and Open Code say anything more than Public, as
both MS-PL and MS-CL are open, public, and allow free reuse, according
to common usage of the terms.  Therefore I would go with Public, to keep
names to a minimum.  I dislike Simple, as it implies that something was
dumbed down or taken away, which is not the case.

I like Microsoft Public License best, even if it reminds me of the other
very famous Public license, which is in fact reciprocal.  But nearly
half of the OSI-approved licenses have Public in their name, and only a
handful of them are reciprocal, so I don't think that's an issue.


Tobia