The MSPL is great and all... but I think it lacks a bit of expressive clarity:
MSPL: "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." AL 2.0: "Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed." I prefer the explicit-ness that the AL has regarding. If we're going to be clear, then let's be very clear. G Garrett Serack | Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows. From: Ferdi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:51 AM To: Garrett Serack Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Choice of License. Why not Ms-PL? easy... 2010/5/18 Garrett Serack <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> I've been looking at this carefully, and it boils down to a couple of choices: New BSD (simple, direct, but a bit vague) Or Apache License 2.0. The nice part of the AL is that its language is quite clear about what means what, and specifically what is being granted, whereas the BSD license is relying upon a lot of 'implied' license of patents and whatnot. The AL also directly limits liability-always a good thing. Unless someone can give me a significantly good reason to rethink this, I'd say we should go with the AL 2.0 for all the code we create. Shallow-forks of other projects should maintain the licenses of their upstream originators. G <http://fearthecowboy.com/> Garrett Serack | Microsoft's Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation Office:(425)706-7939 email/messenger: [email protected] blog: http://fearthecowboy.com twitter: @fearthecowboy<http://fearthecowboy.com/> I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.<http://fearthecowboy.com/> <http://fearthecowboy.com/> <http://fearthecowboy.com/> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp<http://fearthecowboy.com/> <http://fearthecowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
