Thanks Gustavo! That makes sense to me. Michael
-----Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:01 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 4 Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to license-discuss@opensource.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org You can reach the person managing the list at license-discuss-ow...@opensource.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3 (Gustavo G. Mármol) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:49:12 -0300 From: Gustavo G. Mármol <gustavo.mar...@gmail.com> To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3 Message-ID: <CAG8sXJ_36CZQ=fsss90p8fajkzxzpgnyh5r5el_ekvjlekn...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Michael, IMHO I think that the wording mentioned would work against to what is established in FPL. The downstream distribution under GPLv3 it would be one of the option to choose between others, but not the only one option according to the FPL. I would say that it would work as a restriction to the original license terms that it would not be acceptable under this License. If accepted it would be fine for "other license created" but not the FPL already approved by the OSI. That´s to say, It would be other license, and not anymore the FPL. Cheers, Gustavo. 2016-06-16 9:00 GMT-03:00 <license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org>: > Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to > license-discuss@opensource.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > license-discuss-ow...@opensource.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Adding GPL Terms to FPL License Agreement (Michael L. Whitener) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 01:44:06 +0000 > From: "Michael L. Whitener" <mwhite...@vlplawgroup.com> > To: "license-discuss@opensource.org" <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: [License-discuss] Adding GPL Terms to FPL License Agreement > Message-ID: > <0475f32bec9488469a9eb3b433bb33da01eeb...@svmail02.vlp.inc> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Would love to get the group's input on the following issue. > > I'm reviewing a software license agreement that purports to license > software under the Free Public License 1.0.0 (FPL), which is quite > permissive. The approved FPL license terms are included in the license > grant. > > But in a subsequent section of the license agreement, there's a > requirement that if the licensee distributes the FPL-licensed software > in source code, the distribution must be under GPL v.3 license terms. > > To my mind, requiring that the software's source code can only be > distributed under GPL terms directly contradicts, and is incompatible > with, the permissive FPL terms. > > Do you agree, or am I off-base? > > Thanks, > Michael > > > > This message contains information which may be confidential and > legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, > copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained > in the message. If you have received this message in error, please > send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by > VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or > for promotional or marketing purposes. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/2016 > 0616/c54d2571/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > ------------------------------ > > End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3 > ********************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/attachments/20160616/03369fd0/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ------------------------------ End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 4 ********************************************** This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
