Submitting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 for OSI inclusion.

[Michael Tiemann]

John Cowan wrote:
> Michael Tiemann scripsit:
>
>   
>> We're not playing favorites here.  Unlike the case of the Microsoft 
>> licenses (which were discussed as a hypothetical possibility), Chris 
>> DiBona made a specific request, which is now in play.  If somebody has 
>> code licensed under a Microsoft license (any Microsoft license) and 
>> wants to know whether we think the license does or does not conform to 
>> the OSD, we'll give it a fair hearing.
>>     
>
> In fact, I made actual requests for approval on 9 December 2005
> for the MS Community License and the MS Permissive License.  See
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11331:200512:cokmgmoknbgepfbongjn
> and
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11330:200512:mkohfpmjekmjelobgffa
> respectively.  I withdrew those requests on 11 December at Russ
> Nelson's request: he hoped that MS would submit these licenses
> on their own.  Groklaw, eWeek, and Slashdot covered the matter: see
> http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/08/slashdot-eweek-microsoft-osi-groklaw.html
> for links.
>
> I would not be averse to reopening the consideration of these licenses
> for the same reasons stated in my original posts.
>   
My apologies for performing an incomplete search of the archives, and 
thanks for providing the references.  We have a board meeting coming up 
on July 11th.  If you can prevail upon Microsoft to submit those 
licenses by then, we can moot the point.  Otherwise, I'll ask Russ if 
he'd like to unfreeze the consideration of these licenses.

One question: is there a body of code now covered by the licenses?  
Although it's a bit of chicken-and-egg, sometimes it's nice to have some 
code that will become "open source" when a license is approved, rather 
than just another entry in a too-long list of potential choices.

M