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 273611
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[6]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by Lettherebemorelight on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 19:43
in reply to "RE[5]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2005-07-11
"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
Yes I guess thats right, so the GPL takes a slightly different twist on public domain in order to specifically to avoid things like the example you gave below;
including slapping your own copyright on it (filing of the serial numbers, so to speak, and reselling it as original).
RE[7]: The "compatibility" euphemism
by archiesteel on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 21:52
in reply to "RE[6]: The "compatibility" euphemism"
Member since:2005-07-02
Yes I guess thats right, so the GPL takes a slightly different twist on public domain in order to specifically to avoid things like the example you gave below
Actually that is incorrect. The GPL is an extension of copyrights, and has nothing to do with Public Domain, which means that the software (text, work of art, etc.) is not covered by copyright.
The "Public" in GPL (or MPL, or any other Public license) simply means that the license is available to all.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.