License Committee Report for July 2007

Michael Poole mdpoole at
Tue Jul 31 11:29:00 UTC 2007

Radcliffe, Mark writes:

> 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. 

I am not asking for automatic approval.  I am just trying to get
discussion on the merits or flaws of the license -- rather than
arguments whether anyone has yet filled out the proper forms and
guessed how to get license-approval to accept a review request.  The
latter is what seems silly for a license like the GPL, but is
apparently the current hang-up.

Unfortunately, thanks to replies containing much more snark than
information, I am no closer now to understanding how to move things
forward than I was when I read Timothy McIntyre's email.  The changes
in GPLv3 seem deep enough that over-analogy with GPLv2 could obscure
important changes, which is the major reason I did not and do not feel
comfortable enumerating the changes.

Michael Poole

More information about the License-discuss mailing list