Re: GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review (WAS: License Committee Report for July 2007)

[Chris Travers]

I have am somewhat new to these lists.  I do have something to add but I
am not sure where the process is with regard to approving the GPL and
LGPL v3.

Unfortunately I am *not* convinced that these licenses meet the OSD. In
particular, I have concerns over how well it fits in with sections 6 (no
discrimination against fields of endeavor) and 10 (must be
technology-neutral).

Section 6 of the GPL v3 contains anti-Tivoization provision which may
effectively discriminate against fields of endeavor where through
legislation or cartel contracts (DVD CSS license terms), the software
component of the device may not be user-serviceable.  This is a specific
intent of the license and should not be ignored.  Similarly, one might
argue that these provisions in the license are made specifically to
target the embedded space, thus raising the question of whether they are
technologically neutral.

I am not saying that the licenses should not be approved.  I am saying
that *if* they are approved, I think that the Board should also explain
how they define these clauses and *why* they feel that these licenses
meet these specific terms.  There is no question in my mind that these
licenses erode the established OSD, but the question ought to be is this
sufficiently within the spirit of the OSD to be acceptable.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Chris Travers
n:Travers;Chris
email;internet:chris@...
tel;work:509-888-0220
tel;cell:509-630-7794
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[Chris DiBona]

I'm not sure if I've said it before, but I'd like to ensure that my
only objection is logged as well, while approval of the lgpl and gpl
versions 3 is fine, it should be explicitly stated that any amendments
must be put through this process for them to be considered osi
approved.

Thanks.

Chris

On 8/14/07, Chris Travers <chris@...> wrote:

> I have am somewhat new to these lists.  I do have something to add but I
> am not sure where the process is with regard to approving the GPL and
> LGPL v3.
>
> Unfortunately I am *not* convinced that these licenses meet the OSD. In
> particular, I have concerns over how well it fits in with sections 6 (no
> discrimination against fields of endeavor) and 10 (must be
> technology-neutral).
>
> Section 6 of the GPL v3 contains anti-Tivoization provision which may
> effectively discriminate against fields of endeavor where through
> legislation or cartel contracts (DVD CSS license terms), the software
> component of the device may not be user-serviceable.  This is a specific
> intent of the license and should not be ignored.  Similarly, one might
> argue that these provisions in the license are made specifically to
> target the embedded space, thus raising the question of whether they are
> technologically neutral.
>
> I am not saying that the licenses should not be approved.  I am saying
> that *if* they are approved, I think that the Board should also explain
> how they define these clauses and *why* they feel that these licenses
> meet these specific terms.  There is no question in my mind that these
> licenses erode the established OSD, but the question ought to be is this
> sufficiently within the spirit of the OSD to be acceptable.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com