GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review (WAS: License Committee Report for July 2007)

Chris DiBona cdibona at
Fri Aug 17 14:36:04 UTC 2007

I'm not sure if I've said it before, but I'd like to ensure that my
only objection is logged as well, while approval of the lgpl and gpl
versions 3 is fine, it should be explicitly stated that any amendments
must be put through this process for them to be considered osi



On 8/14/07, Chris Travers <chris at> wrote:
> I have am somewhat new to these lists.  I do have something to add but I
> am not sure where the process is with regard to approving the GPL and
> LGPL v3.
> Unfortunately I am *not* convinced that these licenses meet the OSD. In
> particular, I have concerns over how well it fits in with sections 6 (no
> discrimination against fields of endeavor) and 10 (must be
> technology-neutral).
> Section 6 of the GPL v3 contains anti-Tivoization provision which may
> effectively discriminate against fields of endeavor where through
> legislation or cartel contracts (DVD CSS license terms), the software
> component of the device may not be user-serviceable.  This is a specific
> intent of the license and should not be ignored.  Similarly, one might
> argue that these provisions in the license are made specifically to
> target the embedded space, thus raising the question of whether they are
> technologically neutral.
> I am not saying that the licenses should not be approved.  I am saying
> that *if* they are approved, I think that the Board should also explain
> how they define these clauses and *why* they feel that these licenses
> meet these specific terms.  There is no question in my mind that these
> licenses erode the established OSD, but the question ought to be is this
> sufficiently within the spirit of the OSD to be acceptable.
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers

Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at
Personal Weblog:

More information about the License-discuss mailing list