For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Donovan Hawkins (hawkins at cephira.com):
>   
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>> Therefore, even if OSD section 9 grounds are not sufficient cause for 
>>> rejection, we should consider rejecting on the basis that this is a 
>>> license which tries to be redundant with the GPLv2
>>>       
>> No, it tries to be a better GPL than v2, for suitable definitions of 
>> better.
>>     
>
> My understanding is that this (above) is not what OSD#9 concerns, in any
> event.  OSD#9 essentially says your licence cannot prevent inclusion of
> other software that is _mere_ distributed with (alongside, nearby) the
> covered software.  Mr Travers's view notwithstanding, this very
> obviously has nothing at all to do with compatibility with works
> encumbered by the covered work's copyright.
>   
So, if the Aladdin FPL (the reason for #9) merely referred to "collected 
works" and so forth, where the Copyright Act does give them exclusive 
rights of control, would it be OK?

I would argue that the GPL3 forces such a collected work (though 
arguably only based on functional definitions and requirements and 
therefore possibly beyond any copyright of its own as a whole) and then 
forces its license onto every part of that collected work.

IANAL, IMHO, etc.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070826/f3a51b4d/attachment.vcf>