Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Chris Travers <chris@metatrontech.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:26:00 -0700
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:26:00 -0700
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>   
>> I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
>> think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
>> seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license.
>>     
>
> No, there's a significant difference, in that MS-PL isn't compatible
> with copyleft licenses because it explicitly prohibits sublicensing.
>
>   
>>  The MS-CL is slightly different and seems to be compatible with a number of other
>> Free and non-Free open source licenses (included by my reading all
>> versions of the GPL and MPL).
>>     
>
> No, it isn't compatible with the GPL because the combination would have
> to be under the GPL and MS-CL of course also prohibits sublicensing (as
> you would expect from a copyleft license).
>   
I haven't seen this in either license.  Maybe you could enlighten me?   
The MS-PL's restrictions seem to be:
1)  No trademark license
2)  Patent licenses end if you initate lawsuits over any patents in 
covered software
3) Redistribution requires compatible license
4)  No warranty.

The MS-CL also requires:
1)  "Reciprocal grants" meaning that those you redistribute the software 
to get it under the terms of the same license
2)  All copyright notices must remain intact.

Did I miss something?  Or are we talking about different licenses?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
The MS-CL seems to have the additional requirement of
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
>   



["text/x-vcard" not shown]