For Approval: GPLv3
chris at metatrontech.com
Sun Aug 26 18:58:16 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.
So, if the Aladdin FPL (the reason for #9) merely referred to "collected
works" and so forth, where the Copyright Act does give them exclusive
rights of control, would it be OK?
I would argue that the GPL3 forces such a collected work (though
arguably only based on functional definitions and requirements and
therefore possibly beyond any copyright of its own as a whole) and then
forces its license onto every part of that collected work.
IANAL, IMHO, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss