License Committee Report for July 2007
Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com
Tue Jul 31 05:51:36 UTC 2007
As General Counsel of OSI, I agree with Rick. Simply because it is the
"successor" to a widely used license does not mean that it should be
given an automatic approval. In fact, the GPLv3 is quite different from
GPLv2 and deserves a standard review.
Since I was the Chair of Committee C and spent many hours in proposing
changes to the draft, I have a lot invested in the success of GPLv3 and
I am confident that it will pass the review, but we should not short
circuit the process merely because it is a "successor". For a summary of
the differences, you can see my blog:
From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 6:51 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: License Committee Report for July 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?
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com
More information about the License-discuss