Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:54:11 -0700
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:54:11 -0700
On 9/25/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Michael Tiemann wrote:
>
> > Thus, you are interested in having the OSI lead the process by making
> rulings and letting
> > you craft remedies rather than discussing until a common positive
> consensus
> > is reached.
>
> I think there already is a positive consensus that at least MS-PL (MS-CL
> has simply been discussed much less) is OSD-compliant.  The remaining
> issues are mostly about the need for and consequences of approving the
> license.  I think the main issues mentioned are:
>
> a. Is MS-PL a permissive license?  If not, should OSI ask/require that
> it be renamed?
>
> I don't think it's permissive in a meaningful sense, because other
> permissive (as the term is generally understood in the FOSS community)
> licenses allow incorporating into source code works under other
> licenses, provided that the permissive license and copyright notice is
> preserved, and MS-PL does not.



I don't think that it prevents you from incorporating the source code in a
work under a different license.  You just can't suggest that the license for
the other work governs the code excerpts you merely used with permission
(but there is nothing new here).  This doens't seem to prevent *you* from
enforcing *your* copyrights however you see fit.  You just can't extend your
copyright controls to the MS-PL code.  To be fair the BSDL doesn't seem to
allow *this specific case* either.  The MS-PL may be just a little more
forceful in this regard and that might be a good thing.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/25/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
Michael Tiemann wrote:

> Thus, you are interested in having the OSI lead the process by making rulings and letting
> you craft remedies rather than discussing until a common positive consensus
> is reached.

I think there already is a positive consensus that at least MS-PL (MS-CL
has simply been discussed much less) is OSD-compliant.  The remaining
issues are mostly about the need for and consequences of approving the
license.  I think the main issues mentioned are:

a. Is MS-PL a permissive license?  If not, should OSI ask/require that
it be renamed?

I don't think it's permissive in a meaningful sense, because other
permissive (as the term is generally understood in the FOSS community)
licenses allow incorporating into source code works under other
licenses, provided that the permissive license and copyright notice is
preserved, and MS-PL does not.


I don't think that it prevents you from incorporating the source code in a work under a different license.  You just can't suggest that the license for the other work governs the code excerpts you merely used with permission (but there is nothing new here).  This doens't seem to prevent *you* from enforcing *your* copyrights however you see fit.  You just can't extend your copyright controls to the MS-PL code.  To be fair the BSDL doesn't seem to allow *this specific case* either.  The MS-PL may be just a little more forceful in this regard and that might be a good thing.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers