For Approval: GPLv3
chris at metatrontech.com
Sun Aug 26 18:51:42 UTC 2007
Rick Moen wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I would suggest that Rick might want to review the definition of
"collected works" and look at how it would affect OSD #9 according to
his interpretation. Other licenses such as the Alladin Free Public
License would not meet the OSD #9 even in cases where it was merely
excersizing control over distribution in collected works (which
arguably, it might be doing if we want to get into such arguments).
Would the Aladdin Free Public License be more acceptable if it limited
its scope in the offending portion to "collected works?"
In this case, the argument is that the GPL3 forces one to create a
collected work and then extends itself onto every piece of that
collection. It would be even *more* offensive than an AGPL which merely
referred to collected works.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss