Subject: Re: GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review (WAS: License Committee Report for July 2007)
From: "Chris DiBona" <>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:36:04 -0700

I'm not sure if I've said it before, but I'd like to ensure that my
only objection is logged as well, while approval of the lgpl and gpl
versions 3 is fine, it should be explicitly stated that any amendments
must be put through this process for them to be considered osi



On 8/14/07, Chris Travers <> wrote:
> I have am somewhat new to these lists.  I do have something to add but I
> am not sure where the process is with regard to approving the GPL and
> LGPL v3.
> Unfortunately I am *not* convinced that these licenses meet the OSD. In
> particular, I have concerns over how well it fits in with sections 6 (no
> discrimination against fields of endeavor) and 10 (must be
> technology-neutral).
> Section 6 of the GPL v3 contains anti-Tivoization provision which may
> effectively discriminate against fields of endeavor where through
> legislation or cartel contracts (DVD CSS license terms), the software
> component of the device may not be user-serviceable.  This is a specific
> intent of the license and should not be ignored.  Similarly, one might
> argue that these provisions in the license are made specifically to
> target the embedded space, thus raising the question of whether they are
> technologically neutral.
> I am not saying that the licenses should not be approved.  I am saying
> that *if* they are approved, I think that the Board should also explain
> how they define these clauses and *why* they feel that these licenses
> meet these specific terms.  There is no question in my mind that these
> licenses erode the established OSD, but the question ought to be is this
> sufficiently within the spirit of the OSD to be acceptable.
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers

Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at
Personal Weblog: