Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Community License
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:43:14 +0000

John Cowan wrote:
> I believe that this license should be approved by OSI even though it is
> basically similar to more widely used weak-reciprocal licenses, because
> it is better to encourage Microsoft in particular to release under an
> OSI-approved license than not -- I think it very unlikely that they will
> go back and adopt some existing license.

Possibly true, but it is asymmetric and thus should not be approved
for the same reason OVPL wasn't.

A contributor who uses code in the covered files, then distributes
his own work has to do so under (broadly) the terms of this
license (specifically the copyright and patent grant sections).

However, certain terms of the license only apply to such subsequent
distributors, and not to Microsoft. For instance, the subsequent
distributors are not protected by the warranty disclaimer, and
only Microsoft is protected by the patent defense clause.

Therefore, I do not believe it meets the OSD as currently interpreted
post-OVPL.

Alex