For Approval: GPLv3

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Donovan Hawkins (hawkins at cephira.com):
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

> >Therefore, even if OSD section 9 grounds are not sufficient cause for 
> >rejection, we should consider rejecting on the basis that this is a 
> >license which tries to be redundant with the GPLv2
> 
> No, it tries to be a better GPL than v2, for suitable definitions of 
> better.

My understanding is that this (above) is not what OSD#9 concerns, in any
event.  OSD#9 essentially says your licence cannot prevent inclusion of
other software that is _mere_ distributed with (alongside, nearby) the
covered software.  Mr Travers's view notwithstanding, this very
obviously has nothing at all to do with compatibility with works
encumbered by the covered work's copyright.

>