For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

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 
>> 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.
>   
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.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070826/a53df5d2/attachment.vcf>