For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Zac Bowling]

I understand what you are saying. The problem is that licenses evolve.
They are in all intents different licenses. Take a look at creative
commons. They premote the latest but there are tons of differences and
revisions and versions and they stay in effect by those using them.

People are still releasing software under GPLv2 and will not or cannot
upgrade to GPLv3 (such is the case with the Linux kernel which can't
be changed to GPLv3 without securing the approval of every single
contributor that ever sent a patch in). Sun is releasing OpenJDK under
GPLv2 and says it will not upgrade to GPLv3 in the near future. The
same could be true for other licenses. It's all still open source.

We should do the same and probably recommend using the latest version,
but older versions that qualified as open source don't suddenly not
qualifly.

Zac

On 9/7/07, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I didn't say which ones should be deprecated as new come in, there
> are plenty of less important licenses than v2.
>
> Chris
>
> On 9/6/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/6/07, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One thing that would make me pleased as punch would be if OSI would
> > > only approve a new license if an old one is deprecated.
> >
> >
> > So you think we should make the deprecation of the GPLv2 a criteria for
> > approving the GPLv3?
> >
> > It seems that most people on the list felt that the GPLv2 should not be
> > deprecated at least for now (and possibly for the forseable future).
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> > Chris Travers
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
>


-- 
Zac Bowling
http://www.zacbowling.com
---

I support Mozilla Firefox.
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1