For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

IANAL, etc.

On 9/9/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It is clear to me that the example you cite, of a project leader
> changing the project's licensing terms from GPLv2 to GPLv3, does qualify
> as protecting the rights of contributors and avoiding injury to them.



So you are saying that if any of Tivo's patches were accepted, that moving
the Linux kernel from GPL2 to GPL3 would not cause them injury sufficient
for a cause of action?


> I can't speak for every open source developer, but there is no way in heck
> > I'm getting myself on the hook based on the advice of Internet IANAL's
> > (and the occasional real lawyer), none of whom I can sue for
> incompetance
> > if they are wrong.
>
> No, you should act on the basis of an elementary understanding of tort
> law, which turns out to be not very difficult.


I don't want to take legal advice from Eric Raymond or you.  Based on his
analysis, upgrading a GPL license to an AGPL would be OK (since the AGPL is
not really functionally different from the OSL) and there is *no way* this
would be acceptable to projects I work on for very practical reasons.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070909/0528512d/attachment.html>