Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:31:32 -0700
Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:31:32 -0700
I know I shouldn't feed trolls but I suspect many other people may be
reading this article in the same way as Alexander even if the views are
different.

On 9/28/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> And here comes the arch paragon of "software freedom" jurisprudence:
>
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.pdf



 I think you are misreading this article.  Please reread sections 2.1 and
2.2 carefully and note that the SFLC never suggests that the GPL either
allows or requires the changing of BSD-licensed files which are used
verbatedm, and only allows releasing changes to those files under the GPL.
In fact, they specifically advise people to leave the BSDL intact for
unmodified files.

My only concern about the article is that they did not discuss the specific
nature of removing "additional permissions" from "any portion of" the
covered work by one who merely "conveys" the software under the GPL v3.  In
fact, their advice seems to be that one should *not* exercise this right wrt
BSDL code.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


I know I shouldn't feed trolls but I suspect many other people may be reading this article in the same way as Alexander even if the views are different.

On 9/28/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:

And here comes the arch paragon of "software freedom" jurisprudence:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.pdf


 I think you are misreading this article.  Please reread sections 2.1 and 2.2 carefully and note that the SFLC never suggests that the GPL either allows or requires the changing of BSD-licensed files which are used verbatedm, and only allows releasing changes to those files under the GPL.  In fact, they specifically advise people to leave the BSDL intact for unmodified files.

My only concern about the article is that they did not discuss the specific nature of removing "additional permissions" from "any portion of" the covered work by one who merely "conveys" the software under the GPL v3.  In fact, their advice seems to be that one should *not* exercise this right wrt BSDL code.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers