OSI's war on corporate licenses
danese at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 23:00:04 UTC 2005
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but are you including
Mozilla as a copyleft license (as Martin Fink does)? Its "weak
copyleft admittedly, but...
On 4/13/05, Brian Behlendorf <brian at collab.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) wrote:
> > Thus, I believe there is value in paying somewhat more attention to the
> > proliferation of copyleft licenses than to proliferation of non-copyleft
> > licenses.
> I agree with this analysis. It would also be appropriate to ask authors
> of copyleft licenses to consider modifications that could enable greater
> combination with non-copyleft licenses. For example, the FSF says the GPL
> and Apache License 2.0 are incompatible due to the (very modest) patent
> termination clause in Apache. Yet, the FSF says such language is needed
> and some form of patent language will be in GPLv3. Despite that, somehow
> it's Apache's fault that the licenses are incompatible. Where's the
> public pressure on the FSF to come out with a GPLv2.next that might
> address this sooner? It might be easier to add a clause to the existing
> GPL than wait for GPLv3 to come out.
More information about the License-discuss