Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> writes: >I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the >license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone >raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions >around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that >the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the >presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)
That's my understanding too. >So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL >1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?) ...or does anyone here want to contact them about it? >The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value >of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question >whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in >modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive >exception permutations, to my recollection. > >As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it >were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never >asked for approval of CDDL 1.0 and GPLv2 + Classpath Exception as a >single license package, SFAIK. Yes; to do this would to head down a combinatoric path of no return. An hypothesis: If a license is already approved as open source, and the copyright holder adds an exception that merely indicates that under certain circumstances they will not enforce certain terms of the license, then the distribution terms are still "open source". The logic is that anyone who receives a copy of the software clearly has all the rights guaranteed them by the base license, and in the general case no one can compel a copyright holder to enforce things they choose not to enforce anyway. In other words, things like the classpath exception are not really changes to the license at all. They are rather promises -- a form of estoppel, in which recipients can depend on the license holder to not exercise certain powers they might otherwise have exercised. Since a copyright holder can only *disclaim* powers, rather than claim new ones not granted by copyright law or by the license they distribute under, these exceptions therefore do not affect the OSI-approved nature of the license to which they refer. Does this sound sane? -Karl _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
