Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> writes: >The first part sounds plausible. An additional permission should not >invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to >forget or ignore the exception and say "I just want my GPL." That >applies to GPL + classpath exception. In fact, it explicitly says >(for modified versions, but the modification could be trivial), "If >you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your >version." > >However, I think this *is* an additional license, rather than just >estoppel or covenant not to sue.
FWIW, I think the line of logic I was spinning out remains true even if the exception doesn't contain a self-removal clause. That is, if the license+exception is OSD-compliant for the first downstream recipient, then there's no reason that fact changes for the next recipient, or the next, on down the chain. There shouldn't be anything special about the first recipient in a chain. Obviously, this all depends on the nature of the exception. If the exception does more than just make a conditional promise of *inaction* on the part of the copyright holder, then license+exception might or might not be OSD-compliant. It's just that we can say with confidence (I think) that conditional promises of inaction -- and only inaction -- on the part of the only party with any enforcement powers cannot, in principle, change a license from OSD-compliant to OSD-non-compliant. -Karl _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
