For Approval: GPLv3

[Wilson, Andrew]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> 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"

As I've stated on this list (several times now) GPL and LGPLv3 should
be approved, since they do, IMO, meet the OSD.  On the other hand
OSI does have an opportunity to send a pro-compatibility message
to FSF along with approval.

> 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.

This is a good example of why emphasizing compatibility to FSF is a good
idea.
As you know, defensive suspension of the patent grant was present in
early
drafts of GPLv3 but dropped in the final version.  Apache 2.0, with
its defensive suspension provision, would not show up as 'compatible' 
on FSF's matrix absent a generous reading of GPLv3's termination
and liberty-or-death provisions on FSF's part.  FSF should be
encouraged to continue working in this spirit.

As far as approving new licenses such as CPAL, OSI is stuck until
we codify pro-compatibility as an explicit component of OSD.
The anti-license-proliferation discussion has been 'resting' of
late; perhaps it can be re-awakened as pro-compatibility.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology cneter