Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 18:42 UTC, submitted by Rahul
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.
Thread beginning with comment 273534
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by lemur2 on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 10:36
in reply to "RE[10]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2007-02-17
If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.
Of for goodness sake.
[sarcasm]Poor BSD developers ... they toil away, write code, and it is taken by GPL folk and they never give stuff back! That nasty GPL is soooooo evil and viral and communist because the code will forever be open that way.
What is actually good is for the BSD-licensed open source code to be taken up by commercial interests and made into a proprietary closed-source product (say OSX for example), and hence become forever closed source. That isn't viral at all. Those nasty GPLers are ripping BSD-folk off, but we need to be nice to those wonderful commercial folk when they do the same thing as allowed by our license.[/sarcasm]
Oh puuhhhhleease! You astroturf people can't honestly expect anyone to actually fall for this nonsense, can you?
Edited 2007-09-23 10:38
RE[11]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by archiesteel on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 17:32
in reply to "RE[10]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2005-07-02
Another good comment for Archiesteel from our dear slashdot (about GPL incompatibility):
Too bad the comment makes a false statement.
If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.
It's not. In fact it's compatible with many other licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL [...] and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that
Sure you can. That's why the GPL and the BSD are listed as compatible by the FSF.
I you're going to let others think for you, CrazyDude, you should first make sure that they're not making false statements, it would make you look less of a fool.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-09-17
Another good comment for Archiesteel from our dear slashdot (about GPL incompatibility):-
If you quit being an ass and took five minutes to read the GPL, you'd discover that the GPL is incompatible with all open source licenses.
Why you ask? Because the GPL requires that all portions of a GPL-ed program must be distributed under the GPL. Hence, if I want to incorporate code that is under the BSDL, (Apache License, or Mozilla, etc.), and distribute my code under the GPL and let others too, I can't do that (unless I own the BSDL-ed code). That's why GPL is called a viral license and that's why it's fundamentally incompatible with most open source licenses.
That negligible aspect you refer to doesn't make GPL3 anymore compatible than GPL2 was. The key aspects are still not compatible.
Edited 2007-09-23 08:50