Hi Larry and Matthew - This has really been one of the more interesting days since I became involved with the drafting of these licenses over two years ago. Thank you, and everyone else on the alias, for the thoughtful feedback. In particular, thank you for bringing this issue concerning .zip files and similar file packages to our attention. We are looking into various ways that the ambiguity can be addressed, but please know that the intent of the language was not to cause one software program that is licensed under a particular license, to be subject to the terms of the MCL, merely because the two are both contained in the same .zip, or similar type of file.
Thank you again for your feedback. I'm going to be signing off for the night and look forward to continuing this discussion soon.
Jon
________________________________________
From: Matthew Flaschen [
matthew.flaschen@...]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 8:02 PM
To: License Discuss
Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Community License
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Other licenses deal with this in better ways, at least from the vantage point of distributors who do lots of
> combining of software into single-file downloads or distributions.
I agree. I think MSCL is clearly OSD-compliant, but the file-based rule
is over-simplistic, and can result in ambiguities like this.
Matt Flaschen
