> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace > the LGPL with a > combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would > expect us to > approach the FSF and get their advice and support for > the exception > language we use. > > Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as > pessimistic. The FSF > members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere > near as random as > people have been suggesting on this list. > > S.
Yes, I'm aware of what they're doing with the GPLv3. However, considering the fsf themselves urges people to not use the LGPL whenever possible, I find it hard to believe they really have the best interests at heart whenever they don't even like their own license. Not only that, they've always said in the past that it is better for people to use "standard license terms" and that exception clauses are "effectively a modification of the license." [1] Additionally, some people have said that the FSF has been discouraging the use of exception clauses due to their refusal to provide a standard way to do it. [2] The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I believe you're required to allow people to do this. So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license situation with a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't... Not only that, members of the debian-legal mailing list have claimed that "GPL+exception" code cannot be linked against "pure GPL" code [3]. So again, what benefit would this bring us? We wouldn't be able to link against "pure GPLv3" code since we wouldn't really be that way. So we would still have some of the same issues we do today... Finally, yes, there are other projects that have done the "exception thing" and it has actually upset some "GPL purists", are they part of the FSF? I don't think so, but I was never talking about official FSF organization employees. Some example of angst over GPL + exception: See comments left on this project: http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnutls/ A whole thread over it on the Apache lists: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Now if you can somehow solve the problems of: 1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception is removable 2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL" licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?) 3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking about licensing when there are so many other things to address that are far more crucial to the success of this project? -Shawn [1] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050325novalis.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception [3] http://groups.google.com.au/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/aca77888801996f6/2ad34b376ecae587?lnk=st&q=%22not+really+gpl%22+exception&rnum=1&hl=en#2ad34b376ecae587 This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
