License Committee Report for July 2007
rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Jul 31 01:51:20 UTC 2007
Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole at troilus.org):
> 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 opensource.org" unclear?
More information about the License-discuss