Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:57:54 -0400

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:

> The latest version of the AFL has a different patent termination clause.  

Sorry, I forgot that.

> I suggested to a client recently that they get
> around any issue of GPL incompatibility by simply waiving any such
> incompatibility as an additional licensing statement.  
> 
> "Licensor intends this license to be compatible with the GPL, and hereby
> waives any claim that the license is incompatible with the GPL."

Umm, IANAL, but I don't see how that could possibly work.  Surely it's
the *GPL* author who has to waive the claim.  Otherwise, you could get
a license like this:

"This is the Eating Improbable Objects License.  In order to create
derivative works from the software to which this license applies, you
must Eat Improbable Objects.  In public.  Any claim of incompatibility
with the GPL is hereby waived."

Surely you couldn't create a derivative work from two works, one under
the GPL and the other under the EIOL!  The GPL licensor would claim
(rightly IMHO) that the derivative work was unlicensed.

TINLA (obviously).

> /Larry 
> 

-- 
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application:     John Cowan
        WELCOME TO <censored>                   jcowan@reutershealth.com
        DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3