Revised License Committee Report for March 2009

[wtfpl user]

2009/3/16 Carlo <carlo at piana.eu>:
> wtfpl user ha scritto:
>> 2009/3/16 Carlo <carlo at piana.eu>:
>>
>>> wtfpl user ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> 2009/3/16 Martin Michlmayr <tbm at cyrius.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> [2009-03-15 01:41]:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only (ONLY) reason to write a license rather than putting your
>>>>>> software into the public domain is because you plan to sue at least
>>>>>> one of your users eventually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's not true.  As I said during the OSI call, the WTFPL was written
>>>>> in Europe where you don't seem to be able to put something into the
>>>>> public domain.  So you need a license that effectively does the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> A work effectively put into the public domain can not be copyright
>>>> licensed at all. This is clearly not the case with WTFPL licensed
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>> I just note that WTFPL is on the list of
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>>>>
>>>> "The following licenses qualify as free software licenses"
>>>>
>>>> "WTFPL, Version 2
>>>> This is a free software license, very permissive..."
>>>>
>>>> OSI, please follow the GNU and approve the WTFPL as a license
>>>> obviously compliant with the OSD in addition to the GNU "four
>>>> freedoms".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> For the sake of clarity, AFAIK FSF does not approve licenses other than
>>> those officially maintained by it. FSF only advises if it believes that
>>> the license is compatible with the GNU GPL.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
>>
>> Clearly states that compatibility with GNU is only one aspect of classification.
>>
>> "We classify a license according to certain key criteria:
>>
>> Whether it qualifies as a free software license.
>>
>> Whether it is a copyleft license.
>>
>> Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. Unless otherwise specified,
>> compatible licenses are compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3.
>>
>> Whether it causes any particular practical problems. "
>>
>> See also
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>> "The following licenses are free software licenses, but are not
>> compatible with the GNU GPL."
>>
>
> Dear Mr WTFPL,
>
> I don't see how this contradicts my assumption that FSF does not
> "certify" or "approve" licenses, rather it "classifies" them according
> the criteria you mention. I am relatively confident that if you ask FSF,
> they will say that the only "approved" licenses are the GNU ones.

Well, then you should submit a patch to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences

"The following is a list of software licences which Free Software
Foundation (FSF) has approved as complying with their Free Software
Definition. They are thus, according to FSF, free software licences."

and

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/?tag=gplv3

"Bradley mentioned the FSF approved license list and the OSI approved
license list."

and

http://www.opensource.apple.com/news/2.0-announce.html

"Apple is pleased to announce the 2.0 version of the Apple Public
Source License. It improves upon the OSI-approved APSL 1.2 by
conforming to the definition of Free Software Licenses, as certified
by the Free Software Foundation. We are grateful to Richard Stallman
for his many helpful comments in this process. "

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

"The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a
free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce
a license that would qualify. "

If that is not akin to OSI's approval to you, well...