The Microsoft Permissive License, one of two licenses the software maker submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval as open-source licenses in August, is unlikely to be approved in its current form. There have been two principle objections to the license from the open-source community, Michael Tiemann, the president of OSI, told eWEEK in an interview here at the annual Gartner Open Source Summit on Sept. 20. The first objection is that the use of the word 'permissive' in the license title implies an expectation that the license does not meet. The second complaint is that the MS-PL is incompatible with a large number of other open-source licenses, he said.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-11
The name "General Public License" would seem to suggest "Public Domain", which GPL definitely is not. 
What straw man are you attacking? Not that I claim to be an expert on the GPL, but I think it's terms do a decent job of keeping control of code and other resources in the public domain.
Just what do you think public domain means anyway?
Member since:2005-11-02
"Public Domain" has a very specific and well-known meaning, and that is that there is no copyright and you may do whatever you like with the work, including slapping your own copyright on it (filing of the serial numbers, so to speak, and reselling it as original).
GPL does most emphatically *not* put code in to the public domain.
WRT the original objection, I don't think the Public is likely to be confused with Public Domain very often because (1) most people just use the acronym, and (2) the word License implies that the work is not public domain.
Member since:
2006-07-04
"Where as GPL and MIT are not really descriptive, those names are not trying to be. "
I agree with you on MIT, but GPL? The name "General Public License" would seem to suggest "Public Domain", which GPL definitely is not.