Subject: Re: BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:15:33 -0400

Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>> Perhaps the MS-PL license was not
>>> accidently named and appropriately categorized as a permissive weak-copyleft
>>> open source license.
>> Where is it categorized as copyleft (besides the FSF list)?
> MS-PL was categorized as copyleft during the discussions on
> OSI approval.  That was actually one of the key arguments in
> favor of approval, since a weak copyleft, permissive license
> is non-duplicative of BSD/MIT/Apache et al. 

What is your definition of copyleft?  As stated, mine follows (in
particular the first sentence of) .  In my
opinion, MS-Pl does not meet that definition.

Matt Flaschen