Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:31:06 -0400

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 9/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> On 9/27/07, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) <jonr@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> like to propose a revision that I hope will get us closer to that goal.  I would
like to
>>>> get all of your feedback on the following name revisions:
>>>> *       Microsoft Community License becomes Microsoft Reciprocal License
>>>> *       Microsoft Permissive License becomes Microsoft Open License
>>>> I look forward to your feedback.  Thanks.
>>> Reciprocal is good. Open is not so good. Consider:
>>>
>>> *       Microsoft Permissive License becomes Microsoft Academic License
>> I prefer Open because Academic has essentially the same meaning as
>> Permissive.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Your thinking is tainted by GNUish "totality" and "as a whole" silliness.

Do you have evidence "Permissive License" has a significantly different
meaning than "Academic License" in the FOSS community?  If so, I am
willing to discuss that with you.

Matt Flaschen