Subject: Re: License Committee Report for July 2007
From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:30:19 -0400

Rick Moen writes:

> Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole@troilus.org):
>
>> Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
>> software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.
>
> Thus polluting our meme pool with a particularly moronic and annoying
> advocacy troll.   Why, thank you, Michael!

If I wanted to be an annoying advocacy troll, I would have made a big
deal about "free" software versus "open source" software.  Rather than
indirectly talk about what is required, I attempted to provide what is
necessary to move this discussion forward.  For that, you are welcome.

>> 2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
>>    respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
>>    the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
>>    address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.
>
> Half-assed comparison (except for your concluding sentence, which,
> arguably, _is_, in the context of the question, fully ass-enabled for
> the enterprise, as an answer to "If your proposed license is derived
> from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have
> changed").  A proper submission would list major points of change, not
> just wave your hands wildly.

If you don't like what the process requires, amend the process.
Timothy McIntyre sharly made the point that the OSI "requires
compliance" with those procedures.  I followed them.

>> 3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
>>    forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
>>    GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
>>    modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
>>    prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
>>    converted to use the GPLvN license.
>
> An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.

Again, if you do not like the procedure, amend it.  It does not
specify in which direction(s) or aspect(s) compatibility should be
addressed.  If you have any specific questions, please ask them -- I
cannot read minds.  (Besides, isn't that what license-discuss is for?)

Michael Poole