AW: AW: For Approval: German Free Software License

[Axel Metzger]

Hello Bernhard, hello list,

Bernhard Fastenrath wrote:

>>>>I do not see why license version 1 should be infected by a
>(misleadingly!!)
>>>>presumed non-compliance of license version 
> >>
>>>I would like to suggest that this is insufficient as the statute of the
>>>license board is subject to change while licensees and licensors using
>>>the GFSL have entered a binding agreement that can be modified by the
>>>license board.
>> 
>> You answered only to my last argument. My first and major point is that
>OSI
>> should treat the non-compliance of license version 2 if this case will
>occur.
>> I do not see that this is a problem of version 1. 
>
>But users of license 1 will migrate to license 2 as soon as you publish
>it unless you allow OSI a veto in this process and you make this veto a
>part of the license itself, not the statute of the license board, which
>might change without a veto from OSI.

Who gives the GFSL-people "a veto" in OSI-things? I think you have no
realistic view on the balance of powers at stake. Take a look on the
institutions behind the GFSL. They are too big to depend on anybody. That was
one of the reasons why they wanted to have their own license. A veto cannot
be the solution. By promoting solutions like this you take the risk that the
GFSL-people will renounce for any OSI-approval. The result would be similar
to the French way of the CNRS and their cecil-license.

Please read also my answer to Russell Nelson (it's number 65 in the thread
put in order by date). I presented a line of compromise there. One should
better talk about participation than about veto-rights.

>The "neutral representative authority" you want to create wants to 
>assume a position like the FSF, because for the individual author
>the FSF is just that: A neutral presentative authority to provide
>a legal representative that is willing to defend the terms of the
>license.

No, the FSF has two hats on its head. For some components it acts as licensor
for others as third party. This raises a lot of difficult legal questions. 

Best regards,

Axel