Submitting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 for OSI inclusion.

Smith, McCoy mccoy.smith at
Thu Jul 5 20:38:22 UTC 2007

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] 
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

As I recall, when some time ago someone submitted the Microsoft
licenses, the reaction was that since the steward of those licenses
ask for OSI approval, it did not make much sense to conduct a review
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
warrant a special case? Obviously we are talking about two quite
sources here.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list