For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 10/12/07, Donovan Hawkins <hawkins at cephira.com> wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Shriramana Sharma writes:
> > > I seriously object to making a business out of this.
> >
> > Exactly why we've never done it. It's a non-starter.
>
> What about the legal analysis required by step 3 listed at
> http://www.opensource.org/approval? I imagine this would
> cost most people far more than $50...are small groups not doing this step or
> is there someone that is helping with this?

Ha! OSI has received a confidential legal analysis of the GPLv3
license... created by whom? Google Legal???

Now, what if FSF (http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response) in fact
dares to sue Microsoft and files an action seeking declaratory
judgment that Microsoft is a party to the GPLv3 license (which it
anticipatory repudiated) and that all its Linux patents (stuff
identified by Dan The GPLv2-Litigator Ravicher a few years back
http://www.osriskmanagement.com/pdf_articles/linuxpatentpaper.pdf) are
simply gone to public so to speak (anticipatory repudiation
notwithstanding)... can Microsoft subpoena OSI and file that
confidential legal analysis unsealed for the sake of public benefit or
some such? Would be fun. :-)

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                 -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor