[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 4

Sat Jun 18 00:00:05 UTC 2016

Thanks Gustavo! That makes sense to me.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of license-discuss-request at opensource.org
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:01 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 4

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. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3 (Gustavo G. Mármol)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:49:12 -0300
From: Gustavo G. Mármol <gustavo.marmol at gmail.com>
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3
Message-ID:
        <CAG8sXJ_36CZQ=fssS90P8fAjkZxZpgNyh5r5EL_ekvjLEKnQ1g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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/2016
> 0616/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/attachments/20160616/03369fd0/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 4
**********************************************

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.