License Committee Report for July 2007

Rick Moen rick at
Tue Jul 31 01:51:20 UTC 2007

Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole at

> Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
> software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.

Thus polluting our meme pool with a particularly moronic and annoying
advocacy troll.   Why, thank you, Michael!

> 2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
>    respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
>    the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
>    address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.

Half-assed comparison (except for your concluding sentence, which,
arguably, _is_, in the context of the question, fully ass-enabled for
the enterprise, as an answer to "If your proposed license is derived
from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have
changed").  A proper submission would list major points of change, not
just wave your hands wildly.

> 3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
>    forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
>    GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
>    modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
>    prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
>    converted to use the GPLvN license.

An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.

> 4. cc'ed.

Was some particular part of "send your proposed licence by e-mail to
license-approval at" unclear?

More information about the License-discuss mailing list