The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of licenses, categorized as GPL compatible, GPL incompatible, and non-free. This can help answer the most common question, which is whether a license is GPL compatible. Since there aren't many other free software licenses which require that the entire derived work be distributed under the same license like the GPL does, compatibility issues are usually lower between other licenses as long as the code stays in distinct libraries or source files.
As far as the Ms-PL goes, you can probably use the FSF list to determine compatibility for that as well. The Ms-PL is a (very) weak-copyleft license (the Ms-RL is slightly stronger, but is still categorized as weak-copyleft). This means that code distributed under it must remain under it, thus making it GPL incompatible, but that you can generally link it to code under permissive or other weak copyleft licenses, as long as you follow the terms of each license and the separately licensed code reside in separate libraries. The only licenses it is likely to be incompatible with are strong copyleft licenses, like the GPL and AGPL. (Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should talk to a qualified attorney).
For a more limited set of licenses, you can check out this Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) License Slide by David Wheeler (reproduced below). Arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow, possibly with some additional restrictions taken from the license at the start of the arrow.
the following paragraph is a generic rant on this topic, related but not directly relevant to your question
The difficulty of determining license compatibility, and simply in understanding the ramifications of various licensing terms, is why license proliferation is such a bad thing. Please, please try to use a common, well understood license, such as the GPL, LGPL, BSD 2-clause or 3-clause, MIT/X consortium license, or public domain dedication, if at all possible. Whatever you do, don't invent your own license. If you must, use the license that is common for the project you are contributing to, to maintain compatibility with the rest of the code in that project. If you follow these rules, you will help reduce confusion, and improve license compatibility.
Answering your comment about being interested in Ms-PL-compatible licenses:
Most licenses are compatible with it. Your best bet would be to go to Wikipedia and type in a license name. It is compatible with the Ms-PL if it's listed as having no copyleft, since Ms-PL requires all released source code derivatives be under Ms-PL.
发布评论
评论（2）
自由软件基金会维护一个许可证列表，分为 GPL 兼容、GPL 不兼容，并且非免费。这可以帮助回答最常见的问题，即许可证是否兼容 GPL。由于没有许多其他自由软件许可证要求整个衍生作品像 GPL 那样在同一许可证下分发，因此只要代码保留在不同的库或源文件中，其他许可证之间的兼容性问题通常较低。
就 Ms-PL 而言，您也可以使用 FSF 列表来确定其兼容性。 Ms-PL 是一个（非常）弱 Copyleft 许可证（Ms-RL 稍强，但仍被归类为弱 Copyleft）。这意味着在其下分发的代码必须保留在其下，从而使其与 GPL 不兼容，但只要您遵循每个许可证和单独许可的代码的条款，您通常可以将其链接到宽松或其他弱 Copyleft 许可证下的代码驻留在单独的库中。它可能不兼容的唯一许可证是强 Copyleft 许可证，例如 GPL 和 AGPL。 （标准免责声明：我不是律师，这不是法律建议。如果您需要法律建议，您应该咨询合格的律师）。
对于更有限的许可证集，您可以查看此 自由/开源软件 (FLOSS) 许可证幻灯片，作者：David Wheeler（转载如下）。箭头表示可以组合两个许可证，并且组合后的作品可以有效地被视为具有箭头末端的许可证，可能还具有从箭头开始处的许可证采取的一些附加限制。
（来源：dwheeler.com）
以下段落是对此主题的一般性评论，与您的问题相关但不直接相关
确定许可证兼容性的困难以及简单地理解各种许可条款的后果，就是许可证扩散的原因这么糟糕的事情。如果可能的话，请尝试使用常见的、易于理解的许可证，例如 GPL、LGPL、BSD 2 条款或 3 条款、MIT/X 联盟许可证或公共领域专用许可证。无论你做什么，都不要发明自己的许可证。如果必须，请使用您所参与的项目的通用许可证，以保持与该项目中其余代码的兼容性。如果遵循这些规则，将有助于减少混乱并提高许可证兼容性。
The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of licenses, categorized as GPL compatible, GPL incompatible, and non-free. This can help answer the most common question, which is whether a license is GPL compatible. Since there aren't many other free software licenses which require that the entire derived work be distributed under the same license like the GPL does, compatibility issues are usually lower between other licenses as long as the code stays in distinct libraries or source files.
As far as the Ms-PL goes, you can probably use the FSF list to determine compatibility for that as well. The Ms-PL is a (very) weak-copyleft license (the Ms-RL is slightly stronger, but is still categorized as weak-copyleft). This means that code distributed under it must remain under it, thus making it GPL incompatible, but that you can generally link it to code under permissive or other weak copyleft licenses, as long as you follow the terms of each license and the separately licensed code reside in separate libraries. The only licenses it is likely to be incompatible with are strong copyleft licenses, like the GPL and AGPL. (Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should talk to a qualified attorney).
For a more limited set of licenses, you can check out this Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) License Slide by David Wheeler (reproduced below). Arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow, possibly with some additional restrictions taken from the license at the start of the arrow.
(source: dwheeler.com)
the following paragraph is a generic rant on this topic, related but not directly relevant to your question
The difficulty of determining license compatibility, and simply in understanding the ramifications of various licensing terms, is why license proliferation is such a bad thing. Please, please try to use a common, well understood license, such as the GPL, LGPL, BSD 2-clause or 3-clause, MIT/X consortium license, or public domain dedication, if at all possible. Whatever you do, don't invent your own license. If you must, use the license that is common for the project you are contributing to, to maintain compatibility with the rest of the code in that project. If you follow these rules, you will help reduce confusion, and improve license compatibility.
回答您对 Ms-PL 兼容许可证感兴趣的评论：
大多数许可证都与其兼容。您最好的选择是访问维基百科并输入许可证名称。如果它被列为无 Copyleft，则它与 Ms-PL 兼容，因为 Ms-PL 要求所有已发布的源代码衍生品都位于 Ms-PL 之下。
我就是这样进行研究的。 ;)
Answering your comment about being interested in Ms-PL-compatible licenses:
Most licenses are compatible with it. Your best bet would be to go to Wikipedia and type in a license name. It is compatible with the Ms-PL if it's listed as having no copyleft, since Ms-PL requires all released source code derivatives be under Ms-PL.
That's how I do my research. ;)