For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[David Woolley]

Zak Greant wrote:

> Regardless of terminology used, this still doesn't need to be approved
> or codified, IMHO.

To achieve its intended effect, it needs to be codified, or given as a
dual grant of LGPL and 3 term BSD. What it seems to be saying is that
the code may be used in non-GPL software, but in that case the 
advertising clause is mandatory (which means it will not be used unless 
essential).

Also consider a hypothetical licence in which the if test was reversed, 
you would then have a licence that was only incompatible with the GPL 
when used with the GPL!  I think that demonstrates that the form of 
construction does have a real impact on its meaning.

I don't think it needs to be approved, not because it can be claimed as 
compliant without approval, but because it is a time wasting exercise.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.