WebM license third-party submission

[Chuck Swiger]

Hi, Carlo--

On May 26, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Carlo Piana [OSI] wrote:
>> With regard to license proliferation concerns, the best way would be to adopt an already-existing license which is fully LGPL / GPLv2 / GPLv3 miscible rather than roll your own.  If you do need to create a new license, starting with a BSD or MIT permissive license at least minimizes the issues with license proliferation.
> 
> It seems this is what Google has done.

Indeed.  :-)

> One of my concerns is that this license could be incompatible with GPLv2
> (as the Apache is, for roughly the same reasons, or even the as the
> GPLv3), and it seems that at least Richard Fontana shares the same
> concern, if I am not mistaken. I must admit, I have not done a full
> analysis and moreover GPLv2 is a "deprecated" license. Sorry to intrude.


You're not intruding, by any means-- I agree with your/Richard's concern.

While it is not necessary for a license to be GPL-miscible to be compliant with the OSD or become OSI-approved, GPL-incompatibility is a significant barrier in many circumstances, and should be avoided if possible.

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck