Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
>>A safe harbor term of "BSD but not the GPL" is not GPL compatible.
>>...but apparently "BSD but not the GPL" can be an OSI approved
>>license, since the approval can go with the safe-harbor interpretation
>>of "oh, it's the BSD."
>
>
> Licence intercompatibility is not a requirement of approval. OSD
> compliance is. By your remark above, the Apache licence shouldn't
> have been approved because rms said it wasn't compatible with GPL (V2).
> So the Apache licence wasn't open-source?
Pay attention, eh? That is a stupid strawman, and I think you need to
be more careful how you elided my message.
My point is about trademark dilution and confusion, not GPL compatibility.
If you have a license with terms fitting the description of:
[Restrictive Non-OSD Compliant Terms]
OR (Safe Harbor = BSD but not the GPL)
the whole license gets OSI certified?
What does the OSI-certified mark describe? The license, or the safe
harbor? Why certify the license when only the safe harbor is what
passes?
