Submitting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 for OSI inclusion.

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> Perhaps not surprisingly :-), the GPLv3 & LGPLv3 seem to be fully
>> compliant with the OSD and are likely to be approved.
>
> Agree they are likely to be approved, even though FSF themselves might
> not exactly agree that these licenses constitute "open source."  ;-)

There are some members of the FSF who don't regard the efforts of the  
OSI as being helpful to the cause of "software freedom", certainly,  
but I would be surprised if they thought that the GPLv3 was not  
compliant with the terms of the OSD.  :-)

> Note that the "Installation Information" requirement, perhaps the most
> controversial aspect of GPLv3 prime, now also applies to LGPLv3.

Yes, I found the distinctions being drawn about "user products" and  
"consumer products" in clause 6 to be somewhat odd, especially the  
notion that these requirements "if neither you nor any third party  
retains the ability to install modified object code on the User  
Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)."

What happens if you deploy some version of the software both to ROM  
and to a reflashable device?  Anyway, nothing there or elsewhere  
struck me from a de novo review [1] as being objectionable with  
regard to the OSD.

-- 
-Chuck

[1]: Yep, Michael, I did re-read the whole thing from scratch before  
giving these licenses my +1 vote.  :-)