Open sauce license means nothing
People kept saying we have too many licenses and instead they give them out like Pez candy.
Whether something is an open source license is meaningless to most free software deveopers except in one way: is it compatible with the GPL family of licenses?
The MS-PL was made to be incompatible with the GPL (and others like Affero, LGPL,etc) and this was not by accident but by design.
You *can't* combine it into a GPL project which seems designed gratuitously to break GPL
This license is:
(a) like the BSD license in that you can take a derived work proprietary
(b) like the BSD license in that you can redistribute it in open source form under the same
(c) *unlike* the BSD license in that you cannot incorporate it into an open source project
with a more restrictive license.
When you have more lawyers than hell will ever need, you end up
producing a GPL-incompatible clone of the GPLv2, and a GPL-incompatible clone of the BSD license.
That is impressive legal judo that Im sure the Groklaw crowd would appreciate more than most developers.
Will the license is called open source, its almost transparently designed to impede code
sharing with other free/open source projects... which is one of the great
strengths of the free software movement.
hey, it does its job which is to give lip service to the 'Redmond has changed' PR that they are milking out of this while the heads of the company never once hint that this fantasy is true.
How often have you taken the words of low level Apple employees to signal a dramatic change of direction for the company?
Yet, we are being fed this line about Microsoft when NONE of the heads of the company have ever showed ANY signs of treating the 'cancer' differently.
Of course, if they can get something out of developers for free but without having to share this work with others, then they are all for it.