For Approval: GPLv3

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Thu Aug 9 03:24:01 UTC 2007

Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> To my mind, this is one of the true ideological differentiators between
> "open source" and "free SW."  Open source is about growing the commons; free SW as
> espoused by FSF & RMS is about creating a maximally free class of SW, and
> maximizing utility of that free SW with the existing FLOSS base for the sake of
> growing a commons is a non-goal for them.

I think this is quite incorrect.  The FSF spent significant effort in
making GPLv3 compatible with Apache and in eliminating other
compatibility problems.  And they have always maintained a list of
licenses compatible with the GPL.

Meanwhile, OSI has approved every license viewed to be compliant with
the OSD, with little concern for compatibility.  OSI doesn't maintain
any kind of compatibility matrix.

>From another perspective, why should we approve CPAL, which is
incompatible with both GPLv2 and "GPLv2 or later" software and unlikely
to become a significant part of the commons, but not GPLv3, which is
supported by major FOSS organizations and compatible with "GPLv2 or later"

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list