Boudewijn Rempt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday 05 December 2007, Drew Hess wrote: >> The FSF will evaluate software licenses for no charge if you ask them. >> Best just to send a request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask them to vet >> the CTL license. > > The FSF has already evaluated this license, found it incompatible because of > the jurisdiction clause and on that ground refused CTL hosting in savannah: > http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?6171.
All we know from that URL is that Stephan Peijnik, who is apparently an administrator at Savannah, evaluated the CTL license and decided that it "GPL-incompatible." I don't trust his answer any more than I trust yours :) First of all, we don't know how Stephan came to that conclusion. Did he submit the license to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and base his rejection on their response? Additionally, the URL that Stephan references re: the jurisdiction clause no longer exists, but it's in Google's cache here: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:AFilFZTraSgJ:gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses+gpl+common+reasons+for+incompatibility&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a Here's a quote from the "Common reasons for incompatibility" section: "When checking licences for compatibilty, here are some specific issues to look for that would make a licence incompatible with GPLv3 (as of draft 2)." Stephan's comment was made in December 2006. The GPLv3 went through at least two revisions after that date before it was approved. So Stephan wasn't in a position to say whether CTL is incompatible with the final GPLv3 license. And finally, that document clearly deals with GPLv3 compatibility, not GPLv2: "This page centrally documents what licenses will be compatible with the GPLv3, with an emphasis of noting what compatibilities changed since version 2, this list will influence the GNU project's license list." Stephan didn't indicate in his response on Savannah whether he was referring to GPLv2 compatibility or GPLv3, he simply said "GPL-incompatible" based on a jurisdiction clause. But the document he cited doesn't apply to GPLv2. We can't draw any conclusions about CTL's compatibility with GPLv2 based on its compatibility with GPLv3. GPLv2 itself isn't even compatible with GPLv3! In fact, if you search the GPLv2 language, you won't find the word "jurisdiction" at all: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html The CTL needs to be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before we know anything, regardless of Savannah's stance on CTL in December 2006. d
pgpDOuAYiv3Iy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
