Subject: Re: BSD and MIT license "compliance" with the MS-PL
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:25:18 -0400

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> So it cannot be a free software (FSF), so the MS-PL cannot be claimed to be
> free, and not even "viral" (please explain this term, which is not defined
> in FSF licences). It is not even open-source for obvious reasons that
> there's no sources.

I never said FooBar is free.  MS-PL and thus Foo are free, but not
copyleft.  FooBar is not free, which is why MS-PL is not copyleft.

Matt Flaschen