www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Apache + MS-PL
Date Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:19:45 GMT
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:45:51AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote on Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 21:35:45 -0400:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:58:06PM -0400, Kevan Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Jesse,
> > > MS-PL is considered to be a category A license -- http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> > 
> > Does anyone have a link to a discussion of this issue? I'd classify
> > MS-PL as a weak copyleft license (though an atypical one) and thus I'm
> > puzzled as to why it wouldn't be in the Category B list instead.
> > 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200803.mbox/%3C2d12b2f00803200818s4a35d080ifac13904a1737e4@mail.gmail.com%3E


I would suggest that the ASF take a closer look at this license; the
summary inclusion in Category A seems to be an error (or else the
inclusion of some other licenses in Category B no longer makes obvious
sense to me). This is based on some assumptions on my part on what
Categories A and B are supposed to mean; such assumptions may be

I have no particular problem with the MS-PL itself (it actually has
some nice characteristics IMO), but rather am bothered by any sign of
inconsistency. :) I similarly objected to the FSF's listing of MS-PL
as a GPL-compatible license, because I considered it inconsistent with
how they were treating most other non-GNU weak copyleft licenses, and
got them to change their classification.

- Richard

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message