Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Michael R. Bernstein" <michael@fandomhome.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:43:13 -0700
Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:43:13 -0700
On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 08:25 -0700, Donovan Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Nils Labugt wrote:
> 
> IMO, there is no fundamental difference between MS-PL and GPL except in 
> who they choose to exclude from their code-sharing club: GPL excludes 
> closed-source projects, MS-PL excludes GPL projects. MS-PL doesn't 
> have to explicitly prevent linking or keeping different source files under 
> different licenses because it acquires this level of exclusion from GPL by 
> virtue of GPL's own clauses interacting with the MS-PL. This is hardly an 
> accident.

From my POV, the fundamental difference here is *how* they choose to
exclude. Other pairwise license incompatibilities (including those that
involve the GPL) arise out of the side-effects of incompatible terms (in
the GPL's case, 'no other restrictions'), which at least leaves the door
open for pairwise combinations that are compatible.

In contrast, the MS-PL and MS-CL, by virtue of explicitly excluding
other licenses wholesale (including each other!), seem to have license
incompatibility as a *design goal* rather than a side-effect, and it is
*that* which I am very uncomfortable with. Not to mention eliminating
the possibility of dual licensing.

So.

Deliberately excluding all other licenses: Bug Or Feature?

I say, 'Bug'.

- Michael R. Bernstein
  michaelbernstein.com


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]