GPLv3, again Re: what *is* the approval process? [was Re: License Committee Report for July 2007]
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh
rishab at dxm.org
Wed Aug 1 16:55:48 UTC 2007
i think it is fair to implement the rules in context. the need for a legal analysis to be included with a submitted licence assumes that such analysis is new and not previously available to license discuss.
there are reams of legal analyses of gplv3 that are publicly available. while not necessarily point by point with reference to the OSD they tend to cover all points, imho. so perhaps a simpler way of dealing with this would be for anyone to state if they have concerns that the gplv3 does NOT fulfil some OSD criterion.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:47:56AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
> > On 8/1/07, Ernest Prabhakar <ernest.prabhakar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, how about you, Luis? Are you willing to go on record saying that
> > > GPL3 is point-by-point compatible with the OSD?
> > (1) I'm not a lawyer, which the rules seem to require. (Just a law student.)
> > (2) At least one lawyer has already gone on the record doing so, so if
> > the requirement is 'be on the record', and not 'point by point
> > analysis', then we're already good to go.
> > (3) I've already got such an analysis written (informal, IANAL,
> > IANFSF, IANSFLC, yadda, yadda), but I decided not to post it in hopes
> > we could all agree with Larry and Rick's one-line assessments and move
> > on quickly with our lives.
> On re-reading, this was unnecessarily combative in tone; I apologize
> for that. The offer stands to publish the analysis with appropriate
> disclaimers, but I do think we'd all be better served if we just
> skipped the discussion altogether.
More information about the License-discuss