The license has changed from MS-PL to Apache 2.0 relatively recently (it was licensed under MS-PL previously and the change announcement is here). I think you can safely assume it is licensed under Apache 2.0, because this is what the team intends. As far as I can tell, this is just a packaging bug and the license distributed with the installation should be Apache 2.0 too.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it may be possible to release the code under multiple different licenses if you own it, so it may be the case that legally, the installation is MS-PL licensed and online source is Apache 2 licensed. (Even if it isn't intentional.)
However, both licenses allow you to do essentially the same things, so this shouldn't be a problem.
发布评论
评论（1）
许可证最近已从 MS-PL 更改为 Apache 2.0（之前已根据 MS-PL 获得许可，更改公告位于此处）。我认为您可以放心地假设它是在 Apache 2.0 下获得许可的，因为这就是团队的意图。据我所知，这只是一个打包错误，随安装分发的许可证也应该是 Apache 2.0。
我不是律师，但我认为如果您拥有该代码，则可以在多个不同的许可证下发布该代码，因此从法律上讲，安装是 MS-PL 许可的，在线源是 Apache 2 许可的。 （即使这不是故意的。）
但是，这两个许可证都允许您执行基本相同的操作，因此这应该不是问题。
The license has changed from MS-PL to Apache 2.0 relatively recently (it was licensed under MS-PL previously and the change announcement is here). I think you can safely assume it is licensed under Apache 2.0, because this is what the team intends. As far as I can tell, this is just a packaging bug and the license distributed with the installation should be Apache 2.0 too.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it may be possible to release the code under multiple different licenses if you own it, so it may be the case that legally, the installation is MS-PL licensed and online source is Apache 2 licensed. (Even if it isn't intentional.)
However, both licenses allow you to do essentially the same things, so this shouldn't be a problem.