Submitting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 for OSI inclusion.

[Smith, McCoy]

There was a discussion along those lines when someone submitted those
Microsoft licenses, but perhaps GPL/LGPL v3 are "grandfathered" around
that rule by the fact that GPLv2 & LGPLv2.1 are already approved? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:35 PM
To: 'License Discuss'
Subject: RE: Submitting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 for OSI inclusion.


> On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Chris DiBona wrote:
> > I submit the following licenses for consideration by the OSI for
> > inclusion in the list of licenses complying with the OSD.

I have a feeling that I might regret asking this question, but here
goes....
:-)

As I recall, when some time ago someone submitted the Microsoft
community
licenses, the reaction was that since the steward of those licenses
didn't
ask for OSI approval, it did not make much sense to conduct a review
and/or
approval. If that was true then, shouldn't the FSF be asking for this
approval now?

Or are we collectively agreeing that (L)GPLv3 is of sufficient gravitas
to
warrant a special case? Obviously we are talking about two quite
different
sources here.