4 ms·

> if you release the source, it's open source That's not what Open Source means, read the Open Source Definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.p

> if you release the source, it's open source That's not what Open Source means, read the Open Source Definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Incidently, Oxite is Open Source, it's licensed under the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) -- http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license http://www.codeplex.com/oxite/license The Ms-PL is a BSD-like license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL; it's part of Microsoft's attempt to poison the well of open source by introducing gratuitous incompatibilities with the most common open source license.

johns 18y ago
Can you explain how it is incompatible? Ms-PL is OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html), which I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses.
- cabalamat 18y ago
  > I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses. In the genreral case, you can't just assume that one OSI-approved license will be compatible with another. Back to this license, the Ms-PL. Term 3(D) says "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license". In other words you can't dual license it under another license. This means that I can't take some code licensed under Ms-PL, other code licensed under the GPL, add my own code, and publish the result; i.e. the Ms-PL is incompatible with the GPL. It's my opinion that this is a deliberate incompatibility. When the Ms-PL was undergoing OSI approval process, I asked Microsoft's lawyer whether it was intended that the Ms-PL be compatible with the GPL, and he refused to give a straight answer.
evanlong 18y ago
"Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. It is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL because of the conditions in sections 3(B) and 3(C). Please do not use this license for anything you write; there are already well-known free software licenses that serve the same purpose, such as the Apache License version 2.0, and we must all stand together to combat license proliferation. However, there is no reason to avoid using software released under this license. " source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLice...
- cabalamat 18y ago
  If the FSF says it's compatible, then I guess it is. My bad.

johns 18y ago

Can you explain how it is incompatible? Ms-PL is OSI-approved (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html), which I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses.

cabalamat 18y ago
> I assumed (an uninformed assumption mind you) made it compatible with other OSI-approved licenses. In the genreral case, you can't just assume that one OSI-approved license will be compatible with another. Back to this license, the Ms-PL. Term 3(D) says "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license". In other words you can't dual license it under another license. This means that I can't take some code licensed under Ms-PL, other code licensed under the GPL, add my own code, and publish the result; i.e. the Ms-PL is incompatible with the GPL. It's my opinion that this is a deliberate incompatibility. When the Ms-PL was undergoing OSI approval process, I asked Microsoft's lawyer whether it was intended that the Ms-PL be compatible with the GPL, and he refused to give a straight answer.

evanlong 18y ago

"Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL. It is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL because of the conditions in sections 3(B) and 3(C). Please do not use this license for anything you write; there are already well-known free software licenses that serve the same purpose, such as the Apache License version 2.0, and we must all stand together to combat license proliferation. However, there is no reason to avoid using software released under this license. " source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLice...

cabalamat 18y ago
If the FSF says it's compatible, then I guess it is. My bad.