License Committee Report for July 2007

[Luis Villa]

On 7/31/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
> Chris DiBona wrote:
>
> > LGPLv3
> > 1) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
> > 2) LGPL
> > 3) previous versions of the lgpl, bsd and likely others.
>
> Chris, as you know, the actual compatibility matrix for LGPL is really
> much more complicated.  LPGLv3 is compatible with GPLv3, with
> LGPLv2-or-later and
> GPLv2-or-later, BSD, and can even be linked to proprietary code,
> but it is not compatible with LGPLv2-only or GPLv2-only (unless it's
> GPLv2 with the runtime or classpath exceptions).

FWIW, FSF has a "good" chart of compatibility here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

I use "good" because it is comprehensive; others who actually have to
use the thing have not unreasonably called it the 'chart of doom'.

> This is (IMO) a really hokey situation, where LGPLv3 is compatible with
> non-free SW
> but not with free SW under GPLv2/LGPLv2.  The compatibility muddle is
> irrelevant for purposes
> of deciding whether LGPLv3 meets the OSD, but it certainly makes me want
> to reach for the ibuprofen.

In good company on that count.

Luis

P.S. +1 to the comments on obtuse rulemaking bureaucracies elsewhere
in the thread, and +1 to getting the license approved quickly.