[License-review] License Committee Report - 2013-03-06

Hadrien G. knights_of_ni at gmx.com
Mon Mar 11 07:45:10 UTC 2013

I see... so "derivative work" may still be confusing, but this 
GPLv3-like wording should work, even if it may have a fairly broad 
coverage ?

"* Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how 
to obtain complete source code for the software, and any accompanying 
work that is based on it. (...)"

Le 09/03/2013 01:28, Bruce Perens a écrit :
> It's going to have that effect, though. At least until someone goes to court about it, and given our difficulty in finding a sucker to be the defendant that could be a long time.
> Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> It is true that GPLv3 was drafted to avoid use of the term 'derivative work', but this was not (as you seem to be suggesting) in order to capture calling or providing an API.

More information about the License-review mailing list