From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-08-03T18:01:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Groklaw says "Watch out, Ruby!"

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:14:32PM +0900, Daniel Lucraft wrote:
> Uma Geller wrote:
> > Actually, there are many differences between the MS-PL
> > and the *real* open source licenses approved by OSI,
> > as pj@groklaw has pointed out in further detail
> > 
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643
> > 
> > Would you want to ellaborate more on this ?
> > Hopefully the dialog will result in Microsoft moving closer to
> > what open source really stands for.
> > 
> > Regardless of the outcome, thanks John for your outstanding
> > work reaching out to the community.
> 
> Groklaw is saying that real open source licenses obligate licensees to 
> distribute source code of derived works IF they distribute binaries. OK. 
> Ms-PL doesn't do that.
> 
> But how does the MIT license require this? There is no wording in there 
> anywhere that looks anything like that, but MIT is in the OSI license 
> database.
> 
> Groklaw also says that Ms-PL allows licensees to charge for modified 
> works. Well, the MIT license specifically allows fees as well.
> 
> It seems that Ms-PL is as much an open source license as the MIT 
> license. Those MIT bastards!

Argh!  Why people think that forced source distribution is some how "the
only way to be free" is beyond me.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
John Kenneth Galbraith: "If all else fails, immortality can always be
assured through spectacular error."