Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:10:02 -0700

Quoting Chris Zumbrunn (chris@czv.com):

> Actually, it was me that suggested that hypothetical wording, not  
> Philippe. I agree it's rather odd, but I'm not convinced it's as  
> unlikely as you think.

Well, the wording you wrote is more than a bit weird; thus my point.
It's simply difficult to imagine a developer in any reasonable
circumstances putting a sticker on a retail package saying "Microsoft
Public Licensed", that form of diction just not being normal, nor the
described action.  Putting "Released under the terms of the Microsoft
Public License" would be rather more normal and likely.

> Intentionally confusing buyers into thinking his software is in some
> way "Microsoft approved" would be the reason why such a hypothetical
> developer would release under the Microsoft Xxxxx License and stick a
> "Microsoft Public Licensed" label on his  boxes.

So, all of this wasted time has concerned a (arguably) deliberately
tortious act, and has nothing to do with the merits of the licence or
its name.  

OK.  May I have my time back, please?