www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache + MS-PL
Date Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:15:31 GMT

On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:

> 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
> faulty.
> 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.

Can you please be explicit on what you find to be inconsistent? Seems the best way to proceed
would be for you to explain either:

1) why you think MS-PL doesn't belong in Category A, or

2) why you think some licenses (and which licenses) currently in the Category B list are equivalent
to MS-PL.

From your statement above, I expect your explanation would be a response to 2).


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

View raw message