[OT] For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[Chris Travers]

I think the issue is that this license came out of a concern about GPL
v3 compatibility which I raised.  I believe it is a reasonable concern
based on a reasonable reading of both licenses (I also believe it
applies to the MITL as well so I don't see the MLL as offering any
value anyway).

I still believe that the concerns I have raised are based on
reasonable readings of the licenses.  In at least one case (the patent
concern) there was a few honest oversights which occurred (in
particular not realizing that implied patent licenses did *not* count
under section 11 paragraph 6).  In the case of compatibility with
permissive licenses, I think that there is still an open question.
However, since compatibility with these licenses was a design
requirement of the license, this means that it is necessary to come up
with a reading of the GPL v3 which does not require one to be able to
convert a license to the GPL3 merely by copying the licensed work in
order to be compatible and work hard to ensure that it is the accepted
interpretation.  My off-list conversations last night have changed my
point of view to some extent on this issue and I now believe we are
likely to see some progress in this area in the future.

However, I think it is both unreasonable and dangerous to assume that
permissive licenses as a class allow one to change the downstream
copyright license to those elements merely use with permission,
especially when this element might be readily identifiable (such as a
source code file).  IANAL, but that sort of view strikes me as
questionable at best.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers