Subject: RE: Approval Process for Non-Profit OSL 3.0
From: "Bob Gomulkiewicz" <bobgom@u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:19:09 -0700
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:19:09 -0700
I have the same question regarding the Simple Public License (SimPL) which
was submitted for approval in March.  The SimPL was approved by the License
Committee in May (quoting Russ Nelson:  "Recommend: approval, placement in
Redundant category.").  Due to an error in reviewing the wrong draft of the
SimPL, the OSI board inadvertently sent the license back because it thought
it was not compatible with GPL 2.0 which it was as pointed out by Matthew
Flaschen and confirmed by Russ Nelson (quoting Russ Nelson:  "I did a
once-over on the two and they seemed to match, however, I didn't read it
carefully enough, because the latter says "Licensing any Derived Work under
the SimPL," which caused us to reject the license. That's obviously not GPL
compatible, however the license in the revised submission says "Licensing it
to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms (such as GPL 2.0);"
which clearly intends to be GPL compatible. I'll bring this back to the
board.")

 

Thanks for the update.

 

--Bob

 

 

  _____  

From: Contreras, Jorge [mailto:Jorge.Contreras@wilmerhale.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:25 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Approval Process for Non-Profit OSL 3.0

 

Is the Non-Profit OSL 3.0 that Larry Rosen submitted for approval on Aug. 7
going to be considered for approval by OSI at its next board meeting?  Maybe
I'm missing something, but I don't see this license listed in the License
Approval Status list at http://opensource.org/licenses/status.  Should this
list be updated to include Non-Profit OSL 3.0?



I have the same question regarding the Simple Public License (SimPL) which was submitted for approval in March.  The SimPL was approved by the License Committee in May (quoting Russ Nelson:  “Recommend: approval, placement in Redundant category.”).  Due to an error in reviewing the wrong draft of the SimPL, the OSI board inadvertently sent the license back because it thought it was not compatible with GPL 2.0 which it was as pointed out by Matthew Flaschen and confirmed by Russ Nelson (quoting Russ Nelson:  “I did a once-over on the two and they seemed to match, however, I didn't read it carefully enough, because the latter says "Licensing any Derived Work under the SimPL," which caused us to reject the license. That's obviously not GPL compatible, however the license in the revised submission says "Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms (such as GPL 2.0);" which clearly intends to be GPL compatible. I'll bring this back to the board.”)

 

Thanks for the update.

 

--Bob

 

 


From: Contreras, Jorge [mailto:Jorge.Contreras@wilmerhale.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:25 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Approval Process for Non-Profit OSL 3.0

 

Is the Non-Profit OSL 3.0 that Larry Rosen submitted for approval on Aug. 7 going to be considered for approval by OSI at its next board meeting?  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see this license listed in the License Approval Status list at http://opensource.org/licenses/status.  Should this list be updated to include Non-Profit OSL 3.0?