[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3

[Gustavo G. Mármol]

Hi Michael, IMHO I think that the wording mentioned would work against to
what is established in FPL. The downstream distribution under GPLv3 it
would be one of the option to choose between others, but not the only one
option according to the FPL. I would say that it would work as a
restriction to the original license terms that it would not be acceptable
under this License. If accepted it would be fine for "other license
created" but not the FPL already approved by the OSI. That´s to say, It
would be other license, and not anymore the FPL. Cheers, Gustavo.

2016-06-16 9:00 GMT-03:00 <license-discuss-request at opensource.org>:

> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         license-discuss at opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         license-discuss-request at opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         license-discuss-owner at opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Adding GPL Terms to FPL License Agreement (Michael L. Whitener)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 01:44:06 +0000
> From: "Michael L. Whitener" <MWhitener at vlplawgroup.com>
> To: "license-discuss at opensource.org" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Subject: [License-discuss] Adding GPL Terms to FPL License Agreement
> Message-ID:
>         <0475F32BEC9488469A9EB3B433BB33DA01EEB210 at svMail02.vlp.inc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Would love to get the group's input on the following issue.
>
> I'm reviewing a software license agreement that purports to license
> software under the Free Public License 1.0.0 (FPL), which is quite
> permissive. The approved FPL license terms are included in the license
> grant.
>
> But in a subsequent section of the license agreement, there's a
> requirement that if the licensee distributes the FPL-licensed software in
> source code, the distribution must be under GPL v.3 license terms.
>
> To my mind, requiring that the software's source code can only be
> distributed under GPL terms directly contradicts, and is incompatible with,
> the permissive FPL terms.
>
> Do you agree, or am I off-base?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
> privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
> to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
> have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete
> this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and
> cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing
> purposes.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160616/c54d2571/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160616/03369fd0/attachment.html>