I've heard one report (from someone who couldn't back it up) that Ms-PL restricts use by other open source software of other licenses. I disagree with them, but neither of us were lawyers.
Most open source licenses including Ms-PL include as-is clauses.
I totally support not going with GPL or LGPL because that severely restricts your "freedom" to do with the software whatever you want. It's highly sided toward the "religion" of perpetual "free software" and not so much freedom. Not trying to flamebait, but it's a genuine concern.
Personally I chose Ms-PL because I share the same goals your question suggests you have and I felt Ms-PL fit the bill. I'm not in a position to promise correct legal interpretation, but it's my unprofessional opinion.
I do believe you are required to include the licenses/copyright notices in your own software redists based on the Ms-PL anyway, but you don't have to add new references to these licenses I believe. So I'd consider it enough if your LICENSE file included your own license, and the licenses of the other software your redist includes, mention to which files each license applies. And then don't recompile any of your dependencies to remove the copyright notices that may have been included in the compiled software.
发布评论
评论（1）
我听过一份报告（来自无法支持该报告的人），称 Ms-PL 限制其他开源软件使用其他许可证。我不同意他们的观点，但我们都不是律师。
大多数开源许可证（包括 Ms-PL）都包含“现状”条款。
我完全支持不使用 GPL 或 LGPL，因为这严重限制了您随心所欲地使用软件的“自由”。它高度偏向于永久“自由软件”的“宗教”，而不是太多的自由。并不是想煽风点火，但这是一个真正的担忧。
就我个人而言，我选择 Ms-PL 是因为我和您的问题所暗示的目标相同，而且我觉得 Ms-PL 符合要求。我无法保证正确的法律解释，但这是我的非专业意见。
我确实相信无论如何您都需要在您自己的基于 Ms-PL 的软件重新发布中包含许可证/版权声明，但我相信您不必添加对这些许可证的新引用。因此，如果您的许可证文件包含您自己的许可证，并且您的 redist 包含的其他软件的许可证，请提及每个许可证适用于哪些文件，我认为就足够了。然后，不要重新编译任何依赖项来删除已编译软件中可能包含的版权声明。
I've heard one report (from someone who couldn't back it up) that Ms-PL restricts use by other open source software of other licenses. I disagree with them, but neither of us were lawyers.
Most open source licenses including Ms-PL include as-is clauses.
I totally support not going with GPL or LGPL because that severely restricts your "freedom" to do with the software whatever you want. It's highly sided toward the "religion" of perpetual "free software" and not so much freedom. Not trying to flamebait, but it's a genuine concern.
Personally I chose Ms-PL because I share the same goals your question suggests you have and I felt Ms-PL fit the bill. I'm not in a position to promise correct legal interpretation, but it's my unprofessional opinion.
I do believe you are required to include the licenses/copyright notices in your own software redists based on the Ms-PL anyway, but you don't have to add new references to these licenses I believe. So I'd consider it enough if your LICENSE file included your own license, and the licenses of the other software your redist includes, mention to which files each license applies. And then don't recompile any of your dependencies to remove the copyright notices that may have been included in the compiled software.