For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/16/07, dlw <danw6144 at insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Actually, according to the 9th circuit, exclusive rights are not
> transferrable or sublicenseable either unless otherwise stated (IANAL,
> but see Gardner v. Nike, a case which appears to have surprised a lot of
> lawyers at the time). It seems to me that the safe thing to do is to be
> skeptical of *any* implied sublicense right."
>
> Absolutely correct. I have never seen  an "open source" license that
> wasn't  nonexclusive -- an exclusive license transfer flies in the face
> of the open source definition for a copyright license.

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html

Q6e: I am just afraid that those independent components of open source
projects they operate their licences individually [RMS interrupts]

RMS: Right, but we don't talk about "open source" here. We do not work
on open source, we did not design GNU GPL to be open source, we're not
designing GPL version 3 to be open source, because "open source" is
the name of a different philosophy - one that doesn't place the values
of freedom and freedom to cooperate at the forefront. For us those are
the priorities. What we do, you won't be able to understand it if you
think in terms of open source, and if you describe what we do as open
source, the people you're talking to won't understand it either.

</quote>

To OSI Board of Directors: kudos for approving GPLv3 as "open source"! ;-) ;-)

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