| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licensesFSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licensesPosted Oct 17, 2007 12:12 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159)In reply to: FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses by moxfyre Parent article: OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions
No. Neither license is GPL compatible, since they both require source redistribution under the original license. I don't think the MS-PL restriction is that different than the BSD one. Consider the relevant clause from the MS-PL and MS-RL: If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. Compared to the equivalent clause from the BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Note that in the case of the BSD license, the "copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" make up the entire license text. If it is okay to integrate BSD licensed code into a GPL'd product (while maintaining the copyright), why would it be a problem to integrate MS-PL/MS-RL code while maintaining their license? (assuming all other conditions are acceptable). As far as incompatibilities go, section 3(B) of the MS-PL (3(C) in the MS-RL) probably is incompatible with the GPLv2 so it isn't completely smooth sailing. It is possible that this clause fits into the GPLv3's patents clause though.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||