@lightweight MsPL has a clause added specifically and only to make it incompatible with the GPL and related licenses.
When I was doing FLOSS activism back in the day, I had a meeting with some "FLOSS Evangelist" from Microsoft, they were pushing hard the bullcrap of "FLOSS-friendly" MS. So when they asked what can they do to make the FLOSS community trust them more, I said "remove that clause".
The guy got *actually* offended. How dare I suggest such a thing?!
@rysiek yes, Microsoft have drilled their "OSS" "advocates" well. I don't think most of them are particularly idealistic (those who are, are hopelessly naïve). They're mercenary. Betraying their community for a high salary funded by proprietary exploitation and monopoly rents.
@rysiek @lightweight The only reason that Microsoft are doing anything with FOSS is to extract value and reduce its operating costs. If they can persuade people to use and develop for Azure based infrastructure then this is their main goal. Assume that anything coming from a Microsoft FOSS evangelist is a cynical self-serving scheme intended to get you to do free work for them. They might throw a few crumbs to a few devs to make it look as if they have goodwill.
If Microsoft BS was the only problem we had then things would be far easier. In the last decade thing have gotten a lot worse.
@rysiek @lightweight @hubert @bob It's also similar with Google. There are not many FOSS-related conferences and organizations not sponsored by Google. This makes it exceedingly difficult to critique anything that Google is doing or to advocate for things which are not in Google's business interests.
@lenzgr @bob @rysiek @hubert I agree that there are some companies - privately held, usually, who are very principle (as opposed to principal)-led... but I take a dim view of the entire *publicly listed corporate* model. I explain it in more detail here: https://davelane.nz/megacorps I see all of those - by their very nature - to be in a race to the ethical bottom.
Not a lawyer here so could you point which cause it is Rysiek? https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL
Is this the one about logo and trademarks?
@wiktor as far as I remember (it was a while ago), 3.D. was the problem:
> (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.
The "only" arguably makes it impossible to dual-license.
But IANAL, and might misremember.
The “only” arguably makes it impossible to dual-license.
Hmm, yeah it seems so although if one used MsPL they probably are not interested in dual-licensing (because it just came from MS) and changing the license of a project that we don’t have copyright is not allowed in general. Say we distribute Sequoia under GPL and someone says “well I can’t dual-license it under Apache!”. D'oh!
Thanks for the point Rysiek, see you later!
@wiktor yup. This was almost 10 years ago and I was way deeper into the woods of legal intricacies around copyright and FLOSS licensing back then.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!