Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: >> > Option 2 >> > -------- > [...] >> I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows >> copying and modification of "reasonable" amounts. > > Agreed, again. > >> It would also be incompatible with the GPL, > > I think it is indeed GPL-incompatible, as you say, but... > >> so I do not understand why Eben Moglen >> would say that it is compatible. > > ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be > GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). > Now we are talking about Option 2.
Actually, in the referenced web page http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html there is the claim Views within the PSIG differ on how each license satisfies each use cases. The primary sources of disagreement relate to one's view of the following: * the GPL-compatibility of a license. Note: Eben Moglen has stated that he considers Options 2 and 3 to be GPL-compatible. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428.103336.2267662035371215801.wal...@geodynamics.org
