|
For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Permissive
License to the OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license.
Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source
community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms combined with
intellectual property protection.
The three sections below provide the information required
for the discussion portion of the approval process. We look forward to
working with the OSI on this submission process and discussing this submission
with the open source community.
Jon Rosenberg
Director, Source Program
Microsoft Corporation
----------------------------------
Section I: Which OSI licenses are similar and
why won’t one of those do instead?
Although one can assess similarity
of license terms in numerous ways, the MS-PL has similarities to terms in both
the New BSD license and Apache 2.0 license. However, the new BSD license
does not contain an explicit patent grant and only implicitly refers to
trademark issues. In addition, we sought to create a license that is
simple, short, and easy-to-understand.
Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other
OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas:
Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that
is licensed under a different license.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a
different license?:
No. The
license states that “If you distribute any portion of the software in
source code form, you may do so only under this license…” This
restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that
states “You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code
version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the
recipients' rights hereunder.” The MS-PL license explicitly
prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license,
regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or
as part of a different piece of software.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with
other code that is licensed under a different license?
As long as the
original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the
MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that
is licensed under another license. Licenses that prohibit the
distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will
not be compatible with the MS-PL.
Section III: The License: A copy of the license is included
below and also provided as a .txt file attachment.
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If
you use the software, you accept this
license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the
software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction,"
"derivative works," and "distribution" have the same
meaning here
as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any
additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its
contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's
patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license,
including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to
reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its
contribution, and distribute its contribution or any
derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license,
including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed
patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import,
and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in
the software or derivative works of the contribution in the
software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant
you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or
trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over
patents that you claim are infringed by the
software, your patent license from such contributor to the
software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must
retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source
code form, you may do so only under this license
by including a complete copy of this license with your
distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so
under a license that complies with this
license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the
risk of using it. The contributors give no express
warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have
additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under
your local laws, the contributors exclude the
implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose and non-infringement.
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this
license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here
as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to
reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any
derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed
patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in
the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or
trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the
software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license
by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this
license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express
warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the
implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Hi, Jon--
On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
> Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Permissive License to
> the OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license. Microsoft
> believes that this license provides unique value to the open source
> community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms
> combined with intellectual property protection.
>
> The three sections below provide the information required for the
> discussion portion of the approval process. We look forward to
> working with the OSI on this submission process and discussing this
> submission with the open source community.
Thanks for your license submission. This seems to be a
straightforward permissive license with strong patent protection
terms; in particular, section 3(e) with regard to disclaiming
warranty obligations seems to be well written to acknowledge that
different legal frameworks may override such disclaimers.
The MSPL seems to be fully OSD-compliant. Although, as you've noted,
it is not miscible with the GPL or similar licenses which seek to
govern how a combination is licensed.
+1.
--
-Chuck
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
> * Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:
> No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the
> software in source code form, you may do so only under this license..."
> This restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public
> License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source
> Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this
> License or the recipients' rights hereunder."
(As an aside, I just noticed that both Mozilla Public License and
Microsoft Permissive License are "MPL"...I'll use MozPL and MicroPL
below.)
The MozPL also has an explicit statement in section 13 that permits the
initial release under MozPL combined with another license. Both the
MicroPL and MicroCL lack a clause like that. While I doubt the license
agreement could prevent the original author from releasing under as many
licenses as he chooses, it seems like a similar clause would clear up
misunderstandings in cases where both releases come packaged together with
a single license document (a very likely scenario).
Also, isn't the name "Permissive" rather misleading? While you are free to
release binaries however you choose, the license is viral and the source
code cannot be used by the vast majority (ie, any) of the existing
open-source projects. I would hardly call that permissive...the word
carries a lot more meaning than "non-copyleft".
Conveniently enough, changing the word "Permissive" could also clear up
the "MPL" acronym ambiguity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Donovan Hawkins wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
>> * Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:
>> No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the
>> software in source code form, you may do so only under this
>> license..." This restriction is similar to the restriction in the
>> Mozilla Public License that states "You may not offer or impose
>> any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the
>> applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights
>> hereunder."
>
> (As an aside, I just noticed that both Mozilla Public License and
> Microsoft Permissive License are "MPL"...I'll use MozPL and MicroPL
> below.)
MPL is well-understood to be the abbreviation for Mozilla's license.
I've seen the newly proposed licenses called either MSPL or MS-PL;
this seems to work well enough to prevent confusion.
> The MozPL also has an explicit statement in section 13 that permits
> the initial release under MozPL combined with another license. Both
> the MicroPL and MicroCL lack a clause like that. While I doubt the
> license agreement could prevent the original author from releasing
> under as many licenses as he chooses, it seems like a similar
> clause would clear up misunderstandings in cases where both
> releases come packaged together with a single license document (a
> very likely scenario).
Clause 2(a) and 3(d) suggest that you can prepare and distribute
derivative works, so long as the source code which was originally
licensed under the MSPL remains under the MSPL. There are no
explicit restrictions against combining such code with source code
under other licenses, unless the other license forbids the
combination. In other words, the MSPL + BSD/MIT/Zlib/Apache2 code is
fine, but MSPL+GPL or similar is not.
> Also, isn't the name "Permissive" rather misleading? While you are
> free to release binaries however you choose, the license is viral
> and the source code cannot be used by the vast majority (ie, any)
> of the existing open-source projects. I would hardly call that
> permissive...the word carries a lot more meaning than "non-copyleft".
A "viral" license is one which requires that a combination of code
under that license and other software, to only be distributed under
the terms of the viral license. The MSPL isn't viral in that sense;
instead, it is reasonably close to the "new" or "modified" BSDL,
which is considered a canonical example of a permissive license.
Regards,
--
-Chuck
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Donovan Hawkins wrote:
>
>> The MozPL also has an explicit statement in section 13 that permits the
>> initial release under MozPL combined with another license. Both the MicroPL
>> and MicroCL lack a clause like that. While I doubt the license agreement
>> could prevent the original author from releasing under as many licenses as
>> he chooses, it seems like a similar clause would clear up misunderstandings
>> in cases where both releases come packaged together with a single license
>> document (a very likely scenario).
>
> Clause 2(a) and 3(d) suggest that you can prepare and distribute derivative
> works, so long as the source code which was originally licensed under the
> MSPL remains under the MSPL. There are no explicit restrictions against
> combining such code with source code under other licenses, unless the other
> license forbids the combination. In other words, the MSPL +
> BSD/MIT/Zlib/Apache2 code is fine, but MSPL+GPL or similar is not.
I wasn't referring to derivative works, I was referring to the original
work. If I create an original program and want to license under both the
MSPL and the GPL, the MSPL implies that I can't do it. I'm sure that's not
actually the case, but I think it would be less confusing if that were
made explicit. I imagine that's why MPL has clause 13.
>> Also, isn't the name "Permissive" rather misleading? While you are free to
>> release binaries however you choose, the license is viral and the source
>> code cannot be used by the vast majority (ie, any) of the existing
>> open-source projects. I would hardly call that permissive...the word
>> carries a lot more meaning than "non-copyleft".
>
> A "viral" license is one which requires that a combination of code under that
> license and other software, to only be distributed under the terms of the
> viral license. The MSPL isn't viral in that sense; instead, it is reasonably
> close to the "new" or "modified" BSDL, which is considered a canonical
> example of a permissive license.
Well, it replicates in the sense that all derivative works are partially
released under it, but I see your point. My point was that it permanently
taints the source code in a way that makes it incompatible with nearly
every popular open-source license, requiring that developers put big
orange tape around the MSPL-licensed code to indicate it is forever under
the MSPL.
I can think of cases where I made MAJOR changes to some open-source
function to use in a project...what sort of Frankenlicense would apply to
that function if I wished to release my changes under GPL but the original
was MPL or MSPL? Every other line of code under a different license? That
same point was apparently also missed in the MSCL if it tries to copyleft
a "file" that contains MSCL code.
It's fine if the MSPL want to place a restriction like that...obviously
the MPL is the same way...but it's not what I would call permissive.
Modified BSD is basically public domain with a disclaimer, and because of
that it is compatible with just about everything. Neither the MPL nor the
MSPL offer the same level of compatibility...in fact, the MSPL isn't even
compatible with the MSCL. I'm surprised if people consider the MPL a
"permissive" license...I'd consider that an unfortunate overgeneralization
of the idea that all licenses are either permissive or copyleft.
My only point was that having "Permissive" in the title is confusing, much
as having "Open" in the title would be confusing if it wasn't, in fact,
open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Hi Jon -- Great that Microsoft has taken the step to submit licenses to OSI. One question. Vanity licenses are a known and understood problem. Would you consider submitting these licenses with more generic names?
When we did this with CPAL it met a favorable response from the community. Ross On 8/10/07, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) <jonr@...> wrote:
Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Permissive
License to the OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license.
Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source
community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms combined with
intellectual property protection.
The three sections below provide the information required
for the discussion portion of the approval process. We look forward to
working with the OSI on this submission process and discussing this submission
with the open source community.
Jon Rosenberg
Director, Source Program
Microsoft Corporation
----------------------------------
Section I: Which OSI licenses are similar and
why won't one of those do instead?
Although one can assess similarity
of license terms in numerous ways, the MS-PL has similarities to terms in both
the New BSD license and Apache 2.0 license. However, the new BSD license
does not contain an explicit patent grant and only implicitly refers to
trademark issues. In addition, we sought to create a license that is
simple, short, and easy-to-understand.
Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other
OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas:
Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that
is licensed under a different license.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a
different license?:
No. The
license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software in
source code form, you may do so only under this license…" This
restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that
states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code
version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the
recipients' rights hereunder." The MS-PL license explicitly
prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license,
regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or
as part of a different piece of software.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with
other code that is licensed under a different license?
As long as the
original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the
MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that
is licensed under another license. Licenses that prohibit the
distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will
not be compatible with the MS-PL.
Section III: The License: A copy of the license is included
below and also provided as a .txt file attachment.
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If
you use the software, you accept this
license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the
software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction,"
"derivative works," and "distribution" have the same
meaning here
as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any
additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its
contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's
patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license,
including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to
reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its
contribution, and distribute its contribution or any
derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license,
including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed
patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import,
and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in
the software or derivative works of the contribution in the
software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant
you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or
trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over
patents that you claim are infringed by the
software, your patent license from such contributor to the
software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must
retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source
code form, you may do so only under this license
by including a complete copy of this license with your
distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so
under a license that complies with this
license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the
risk of using it. The contributors give no express
warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have
additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under
your local laws, the contributors exclude the
implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose and non-infringement.
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Donovan Hawkins wrote:
>> Clause 2(a) and 3(d) suggest that you can prepare and distribute
>> derivative works, so long as the source code which was originally
>> licensed under the MSPL remains under the MSPL. There are no
>> explicit restrictions against combining such code with source code
>> under other licenses, unless the other license forbids the
>> combination. In other words, the MSPL + BSD/MIT/Zlib/Apache2 code
>> is fine, but MSPL+GPL or similar is not.
>
> I wasn't referring to derivative works, I was referring to the
> original work. If I create an original program and want to license
> under both the MSPL and the GPL, the MSPL implies that I can't do it.
If you're the author or copyright holder, you are free to release the
same code under whatever license or licenses you wish. For example,
MySQL offers a choice between using their DB and DB client under the
GPL or under a proprietary license which wasn't GPL-miscible (the
last time I looked, anyway).
> I'm sure that's not actually the case, but I think it would be less
> confusing if that were made explicit. I imagine that's why MPL has
> clause 13.
Somehow, I don't expect that people are too likely to release
software which is dual-licensed under the GPL and the MSPL.
>>> Also, isn't the name "Permissive" rather misleading? While you
>>> are free to release binaries however you choose, the license is
>>> viral and the source code cannot be used by the vast majority
>>> (ie, any) of the existing open-source projects. I would hardly
>>> call that permissive...the word carries a lot more meaning than
>>> "non-copyleft".
>>
>> A "viral" license is one which requires that a combination of code
>> under that license and other software, to only be distributed
>> under the terms of the viral license. The MSPL isn't viral in
>> that sense; instead, it is reasonably close to the "new" or
>> "modified" BSDL, which is considered a canonical example of a
>> permissive license.
>
> Well, it replicates in the sense that all derivative works are
> partially released under it, but I see your point.
I'd say this is true of pretty much all of the OSI-approved licenses.
> My point was that it permanently taints the source code in a way
> that makes it incompatible with nearly every popular open-source
> license, requiring that developers put big orange tape around the
> MSPL-licensed code to indicate it is forever under the MSPL.
The same has been said about GPL "tainting": it requires that
developers put big orange tape around GPL-licensed code to indicate
that it is forever under the GPL, too.
After all, the GPL is not miscible with the majority of open-source
licenses-- 32 examples are non-miscible versus 29 which are GPL-
miscible, counting from the list on http://www.fsf.org/licensing/
licenses/-- although the GPLv3 and some explicit terms in some of the
newer licenses have worked to reduce the degree of license
incompatibility.
> I can think of cases where I made MAJOR changes to some open-source
> function to use in a project...what sort of Frankenlicense would
> apply to that function if I wished to release my changes under GPL
> but the original was MPL or MSPL? Every other line of code under a
> different license?
Unless you wrote the original file, you would not be able to modify
MSPL code and put your modifications under another license.
Even licenses which permit or do not explicitly forbid a derivative
work from being released under different terms do not allow you to
simply remove the license on the original unmodified code and release
that under different terms. I don't believe any of the OSI-approved
licenses allow one to completely relicense the original code.
> That same point was apparently also missed in the MSCL if it tries
> to copyleft a "file" that contains MSCL code.
I very much doubt that Microsoft missed the point with regard to GPL
incompatibility by accident. It's probably safe to assume that the
situation is quite intentional. :-)
> It's fine if the MSPL want to place a restriction like
> that...obviously the MPL is the same way...but it's not what I
> would call permissive. Modified BSD is basically public domain with
> a disclaimer, and because of that it is compatible with just about
> everything.
Um, no, the BSD license is not the almost the same thing as "public
domain".
> Neither the MPL nor the MSPL offer the same level of
> compatibility...in fact, the MSPL isn't even compatible with the MSCL.
Really? Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL with
others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute
the resulting binary together with the various source files,
preserving their original licensing?
> I'm surprised if people consider the MPL a "permissive"
> license...I'd consider that an unfortunate overgeneralization of
> the idea that all licenses are either permissive or copyleft.
I don't recall anyone saying that the MPL is a permissive license.
Most people reserve that term for the handful of licenses which do
not impose restrictions which might conflict with other licenses.
--
-Chuck
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> I very much doubt that Microsoft missed the point with regard to GPL
> incompatibility by accident. It's probably safe to assume that the situation
> is quite intentional. :-)
I was referring to their poor choice of the "file" as the unit of
copyleftness in the MSCL, as was pointed out by a previous point. It's
ambiguous, easy to circumvent, and may cause problems depending on what a
"file" is.
I don't disagree that GPL incompatibility was a design goal. In and of
itself, that's not really a crime since GPL represents a specific
philosophy and not everyone agrees with it. However, I think omitting a
provision like clause 13 of the MPL is more problematic if it leads people
to avoid releasing under multiple licenses.
> Um, no, the BSD license is not the almost the same thing as "public domain".
Actually, I said modified BSD was basically public domain with a
disclaimer. I did forget about the copyright notice though. So, what
exactly are you not permitted to do with code released under modified BSD,
other than omit the copyright notice and sue the author?
I'm going to resist replying to the remaining points because most of them
are debating the value of a permissive vs. non-permissive license, or
whether there are lots of other non-permissive licenses. My point was
simply that the MSPL is not a permissive license. The name is misleading
and I offer the suggestion that it should be better chosen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> A "viral" license is one which requires that a combination of code under
> that license and other software, to only be distributed under the terms
> of the viral license. The MSPL isn't viral in that sense; instead, it
> is reasonably close to the "new" or "modified" BSDL, which is considered
> a canonical example of a permissive license.
But significantly unlike BSD and other traditional permissive licenses,
it requires that MS-PL source code is licensed only under MS-PL. This
appears to forbid MS-PL code from being part of a copyleft (e.g. GPL)
work. Regardless of this, I agree that it is definitely OSD-compliant
and should be approved.
Matt
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Donovan Hawkins wrote:
> However, I think omitting a provision like clause 13 of the MPL is more problematic if it leads
> people to avoid releasing under multiple licenses.
That clause is really completely unnecessary. Most OSI-approved
licenses don't have it, and the copyright holder doesn't need it to be
able to dual-license.
Matt Flaschen
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Really? Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL with
> others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute the
> resulting binary together with the various source files, preserving
> their original licensing?
You can if you keep them in separate files. But this is less compatible
than e.g. BSD, which allows you to include BSD code in a file under
essentially any license as long as the BSD license notice remains intact.
Matt Flaschen
|
|
RE: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi Ross - Thank you for the suggestion. I'll take the opportunity of this e-mail to also thank others who have had advice on the names of the licenses. There seems to be a pretty good discussion
going on right now regarding the license names and we do wish to have them be as clear and communicative as possible. I can't say where we'll come down on this in the end, but it's great to get this feedback, much of which we have not had the opportunity
to hear before.
In an effort to also address those on a related thread who were concerned about acronym overload of MPL with the Mozilla Public License, I'll mention that we refer to the
Microsoft Permissive Licences as the MS-PL.
Jon
Hi Jon --
Great that Microsoft has taken the step to submit licenses to OSI. One question. Vanity licenses are a known and understood problem. Would you consider submitting these licenses with more generic names?
When we did this with CPAL it met a favorable response from the community.
Ross
On 8/10/07, Jon Rosenberg (PBM) <jonr@...> wrote:
Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Permissive License to the OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license. Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive
terms combined with intellectual property protection.
The three sections below provide the information required for the discussion portion of the approval process. We look forward to working with the OSI on this submission process and discussing this submission with the open source community.
Jon Rosenberg
Director, Source Program
Microsoft Corporation
----------------------------------
Section I: Which OSI licenses are similar and why won't one of those do instead?
Although one can assess similarity of license terms in numerous ways, the MS-PL has similarities to terms in both the New BSD license and Apache 2.0 license. However, the new BSD license does not contain an explicit patent grant
and only implicitly refers to trademark issues. In addition, we sought to create a license that is simple, short, and easy-to-understand.
Section II: Compatibilities and incompatibilities with other OSI licenses: Source code distribution breaks down into two areas: Relicensing of MS-PL code and redistribution of MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under a different license.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed under a different license?:
No. The license states that "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license…"
This restriction is similar to the restriction in the Mozilla Public License that states "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder."
The MS-PL license explicitly prohibits relicensing of the original licensed code under a different license, regardless of whether the original code is redistributed in whole, in part or as part of a different piece of software.
·
Can MS-PL code be redistributed in combination with other code that is licensed under a different license?
As long as the original MS-PL licensed code is redistributed under the MS-PL license, then the MS-PL places no restrictions on combining MS-PL code with other code that is licensed under another license.
Licenses that prohibit the distribution of code under any terms other than the terms of that license will not be compatible with the MS-PL.
Section III: The License: A copy of the license is included below and also provided as a .txt file attachment.
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this
license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here
as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to
reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any
derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in
section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed
patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in
the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or
trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the
software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license
by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this
license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express
warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the
implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Jon Rosenberg (PBM) scripsit:
> Microsoft is pleased to submit the Microsoft Permissive License to the
> OSI for consideration as an OSI approved license.
I welcome Microsoft to the OSD process, continue in my opinion that
the MS-PL is an Open Source license, and urge its approval by the
OSI.
I note that because this license creates a separate commons, I would
be reluctant to have OSI approve it on anti-proliferation grounds,
but I believe that this toe-in-the-water deserves to be supported
by the community.
--
The man that wanders far cowan@...
from the walking tree http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> Really? Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL with
>> others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute
>> the
>> resulting binary together with the various source files, preserving
>> their original licensing?
>
> You can if you keep them in separate files. But this is less
> compatible
> than e.g. BSD, which allows you to include BSD code in a file under
> essentially any license as long as the BSD license notice remains
> intact.
True. You've made a set of points in partial reply to me and also to
Donovin which are well taken, so I won't reply to each individually,
but I do wish to acknowledge that I agree with your position in
them. :-)
--
-Chuck
|
|
 Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
I have no concerns about the Ms-PL regarding the OSD. I say "approve."
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
[chris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe
even a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that
Microsoft will:
a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Source
b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
to deter the use of open source software?
If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts? That of a company
who has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend
a communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as
anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness?
Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be
approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses
and reduce license proliferation? I'm asked this for all recent
license-submitters and you are no different :-)
Chris
On 8/13/07, Chuck Swiger < chuck@...> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >> Really? Why can't you take some files which were under the MSPL with
> >> others under the MSCL, build and link 'em together, and distribute
> >> the
> >> resulting binary together with the various source files, preserving
> >> their original licensing?
> >
> > You can if you keep them in separate files. But this is less
> > compatible
> > than e.g. BSD, which allows you to include BSD code in a file under
> > essentially any license as long as the BSD license notice remains
> > intact.
>
> True. You've made a set of points in partial reply to me and also to
> Donovin which are well taken, so I won't reply to each individually,
> but I do wish to acknowledge that I agree with your position in
> them. :-)
>
> --
> -Chuck
>
>
--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.comPersonal Weblog: http://dibona.com
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
I can't speak for Microsoft though I have worked there in the past. But
I can share what I think this means for open source in general.
Chris DiBona wrote:
> I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe
> even a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that
> Microsoft will:
>
> a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Source
> b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
> licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
> c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
> open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
> d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
> to deter the use of open source software?
>
In each of the above, almost certainly not in the short term. Longer
run, who can say?
> If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts?
Because it is consistent with the OSD and because for OSI to mean
something, I think the organization should be reasonably even handed for
a license whether or not it comes from the FSF or Microsoft.
I would hate for OSI to leave the impression that open source licenses
are essentially an exclusive group where the rules for outsiders to
participate in developing approved licenses are different than for
insiders. One of the reasons why I will not consider joining the FSF is
that the GPL v3 process left such an impression. While the details of
this are not on-topic for this list, I would be happy to further discuss
my concerns off-list.
> That of a company
> who has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend
> a communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as
> anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness?
>
Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want everything RMS says
about the BSD and similar licenses to be on-topic for approval of future
FSF licenses? Should it be? Or should we do the right thing and
restrict our review to the licenses themselves? Or should my process
concerns over the GPL v3 (not the final version but the stated reasons
for changes in the drafts) be on-topic and part of the review? How
about other hard feelings towards the FSF?
> Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be
> approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses
> and reduce license proliferation? I'm asked this for all recent
> license-submitters and you are no different :-)
>
>
I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license. The MS-CL is
slightly different and seems to be compatible with a number of other
Free and non-Free open source licenses (included by my reading all
versions of the GPL and MPL). The MS-CL license is simple, compatible
with a lot of licenses, and fairly easy to understand.
So I guess I see value in the MS-CL. The MS-PL question is valid,
however: What makes other BSD-style licenses inadequate? Is there
something that can be done to help address your concerns and move
towards license consolidation as opposed to proliferation?
Note that the only works I have produced under either license are under
the MS-PL.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
[chris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
I appreciate your answers (and largely agree with them) but I want to
hear it from Microsoft. OSI deserves it.
Also, I'd like to keep the FSF out of this set of questions. We're
talking about Microsoft here, not the FSF. There is a different thread
for that :-)
Chris
On 8/16/07, Chris Travers < chris@...> wrote:
> I can't speak for Microsoft though I have worked there in the past. But
> I can share what I think this means for open source in general.
>
> Chris DiBona wrote:
> > I would like to ask what might be perceived as a diversion and maybe
> > even a mean spirited one. Does this submission to the OSI mean that
> > Microsoft will:
> >
> > a) Stop using the market confusing term Shared Source
> > b) Not place these licenses and the other, clearly non-free , non-osd
> > licenses in the same place thus muddying the market further.
> > c) Continue its path of spreading misinformation about the nature of
> > open source software, especially that licensed under the GPL?
> > d) Stop threatening with patents and oem pricing manipulation schemes
> > to deter the use of open source software?
> >
> In each of the above, almost certainly not in the short term. Longer
> run, who can say?
> > If not, why should the OSI approve of your efforts?
> Because it is consistent with the OSD and because for OSI to mean
> something, I think the organization should be reasonably even handed for
> a license whether or not it comes from the FSF or Microsoft.
>
> I would hate for OSI to leave the impression that open source licenses
> are essentially an exclusive group where the rules for outsiders to
> participate in developing approved licenses are different than for
> insiders. One of the reasons why I will not consider joining the FSF is
> that the GPL v3 process left such an impression. While the details of
> this are not on-topic for this list, I would be happy to further discuss
> my concerns off-list.
>
> > That of a company
> > who has called those who use the licenses that OSI purports to defend
> > a communist or a cancer? Why should we see this seeking of approval as
> > anything but yet another attack in the guise of friendliness?
> >
> Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want everything RMS says
> about the BSD and similar licenses to be on-topic for approval of future
> FSF licenses? Should it be? Or should we do the right thing and
> restrict our review to the licenses themselves? Or should my process
> concerns over the GPL v3 (not the final version but the stated reasons
> for changes in the drafts) be on-topic and part of the review? How
> about other hard feelings towards the FSF?
> > Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be
> > approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses
> > and reduce license proliferation? I'm asked this for all recent
> > license-submitters and you are no different :-)
> >
> >
> I won't comment here except to say that having read both licenses, I
> think this is a bigger issue for the Permissive license since the terms
> seem pretty analogous to the new-style BSD license. The MS-CL is
> slightly different and seems to be compatible with a number of other
> Free and non-Free open source licenses (included by my reading all
> versions of the GPL and MPL). The MS-CL license is simple, compatible
> with a lot of licenses, and fairly easy to understand.
>
> So I guess I see value in the MS-CL. The MS-PL question is valid,
> however: What makes other BSD-style licenses inadequate? Is there
> something that can be done to help address your concerns and move
> towards license consolidation as opposed to proliferation?
>
> Note that the only works I have produced under either license are under
> the MS-PL.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
>
--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.comPersonal Weblog: http://dibona.com
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
Chris DiBona wrote:
> I appreciate your answers (and largely agree with them) but I want to
> hear it from Microsoft. OSI deserves it.
>
So would I but only one of your questions really centered around the
license so other questions seem irrelevant to approval of the license
per se. IMHO, that is.
> Also, I'd like to keep the FSF out of this set of questions. We're
> talking about Microsoft here, not the FSF. There is a different thread
> for that :-)
>
My only point is that if we don't keep the approval discussion to the
license itself, then we are going to have bigger issues than this. The
basic issue is: If we hold attacks against the GPL by Microsoft against
them in these procedings then it becomes reasonable to hold attacks
against *any other* OSI-approved license by any other submitting
organization. Do we want to open this door even a little?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
[chris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
On 8/16/07, Chris Travers < chris@...> wrote:
> Chris DiBona wrote:
> > I appreciate your answers (and largely agree with them) but I want to
> > hear it from Microsoft. OSI deserves it.
> >
> So would I but only one of your questions really centered around the
> license so other questions seem irrelevant to approval of the license
> per se. IMHO, that is.
Sort of? .I still would like them to reply to my questions for the
good of the OSI. I know it sounds naive to expect that.
> My only point is that if we don't keep the approval discussion to the
> license itself, then we are going to have bigger issues than this. The
> basic issue is: If we hold attacks against the GPL by Microsoft against
> them in these procedings then it becomes reasonable to hold attacks
> against *any other* OSI-approved license by any other submitting
> organization. Do we want to open this door even a little?
I guess I'd like us to see the door for what it is, and maybe
understand where it is going to lead us should we step through it with
these two licenses from Microsoft. Bringing the FSF and the GPL into
this discussion seems distracting and divisive to me.
Chris
|
