<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sanghyeon Seo</b> <<a href="mailto:sanxiyn@gmail.com">sanxiyn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>Now, suppose a collective work composed of Ms-PL-licensed sources and<br>GPL-licensed sources. My understanding is that it is undistributable<br>in source code form since both licenses want it to be licensed "under
<br>this license". I think GPL would "comply with Ms-PL", but GPL requires<br>distributing in binary form to be accompanied with the complete<br>machine-readable source code, so the source code needs to be<br>
distributable too.</blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Isn't this true about most BSD-esque licenses? I'll admit that I have never really dug much deeper than the surface as to why BSD-esque and GPL licenses tend to be incompatible and therefore redistribution of a GPL'd software package inside of a BSD-esque software package is not allowed. But off the top of my head, the Trac <> MoinMoin incompatibility comes to mind, and there are obviously LOTS and LOTS of other similar situations.
</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Is this particular issue really all that unique, or am I missing something obvious?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div>-- <br>/M:D<br><br>
M. David Peterson<br><a href="http://mdavid.name">http://mdavid.name</a> | <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354</a> | <a href="http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155">http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
</a>