[License-discuss] GPLv1?

[Thorsten Glaser]

David Woolley dixit:

> process was set up, so FSF didn't submit it for approval.

Did FSF submit GPLv2? I didn’t think submission was a requirement
initially.

John Cowan dixit:

>The GPLv2 was grandfathered

Ah.

>but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so
>you'd have to talk to the FSF.

They don’t list it on their list either. I compiled a list of lists:
http://www.mirbsd.org/FreeLicenceLists.htm#lists (input welcome)

>Do substantial parts of your material lack the phrase "or, at your
>option, any later version" in their copyright notices?

Yes. (There is a provision for linking with newer versions, though.)

>I would support its recognition and placing in the "historic" category,
>for what that's worth.

That would be great.

>The differences as shown by wdiff are chiefly editorial, with the

Interesting, I did not think to wdiff them. Good to know.

>exception of sections 7 and 8 of the GPLv2, which don't exist in GPLv1.

From a quick glance of the relevant sections of GPLv2, the lack of
these can be taken as an additional grant of rights, which OSI has
commonly accepted (although normally not certified in detail, except
we do have a separate licence identifier here).

This is, in my eyes, a good reason to keep the codebase GPLv1, even
if I probably could move it to GPLv2 with minor effort.


Back to certifying GPLv1, couldn’t it be fast-tracked without an
explicit submission given it’s ⓐ historic, and ⓑ only a flavour of
GPLv2 without some restrictions and with some editorial changes?

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
>> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also don't like enabling JavaScript in
> Because I use lynx as browser.
+1
	-- Octavio Alvarez, me and ⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕ (Mario Lang) on debian-devel