For Approval: GPLv3
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Aug 10 03:32:26 UTC 2007
Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> 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
> As you know, defensive suspension of the patent grant was present in
> drafts of GPLv3 but dropped in the final version.
I don't know what you mean. GPLv3 final says:
"you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or
counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed
by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program
or any portion of it."
Violations of this will result in termination:
"(including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of
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.
Do you think the above clauses are insufficient for compatibility with
the Apache 2.0 patent clauses? I think FSF believes in good faith that
Apache 2.0 is compatible.
> As far as approving new licenses such as CPAL, OSI is stuck until
> we codify pro-compatibility as an explicit component of OSD.
I think this may be too subjective as a criterion. Anyway, my point is
that GPL should not be singled out as anti-compatibility, which it isn't.
More information about the License-discuss