For Approval: GPLv3

[Matthew Flaschen]

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
> idea.
> As you know, defensive suspension of the patent grant was present in
> early
> 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
section 11)."

  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.

Matt Flaschen