conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

Jesse Hannah jesse.hannah at
Wed Aug 1 00:29:37 UTC 2007

On 31 Jul 2007, at 17:00, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> More generally, I'd suggest that this discussion should focus very,
>> very strictly on whether or not the v3 is OSD-compatible; other  
>> issues
>> are either obviously resolved or otherwise not relevant:
> Many other people are wrestling with the GPLv2/GPLv3 issue, so I don't
> see any need for OSI to poke its irons into that fire.
> I'm sure OSD compatibility is plenty to keep us busy for a while. :-)

That it is :) I agree with Luis completely: let's save the rest of  
the ibuprofen until AFTER it's been decided whether or not the GPLv3  
meets the Open Source Definition. The license has definitely gone  
through sufficient discussion and community review, already has  
received a very wide adoption, and it wasn't exactly written  
overnight on a whim, so one would think that its purpose is  
justified. As far as I can tell, the only question between it and the  
OSD would be over OSD number 9, and even that I don't think comes out  
to be anything that would keep it from getting approved. That's just  
at a glance, but personally I'm surprised it isn't approved already.  
(Then I look back at some of the threads on here and am reminded  

Let's stay on focus, people :) I for one just want to use the darn  
thing, and arguing endlessly over compatibility &c. doesn't help the  
purpose of either the license or the OSI any. What matters at the end  
of the day is, is it open source?

Jesse B Hannah
	<jesse.hannah at>
	<jesse.hannah at>

Homepage: <>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah at>

GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
	Available from the keyservers or at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list