W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Option 3

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:57:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikLwtQsGOAG_3RCcOHm+8SLXpxcTHsG1+1_3oyR@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: mjs@apple.com, lrosen@rosenlaw.com, public-html@w3.org, member-psig@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 03/22/2011 07:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Maciej, haven't you been on vacation?  :-)
>>>
>>> You might want to recheck...
>>
>> Sam, can you clarify this. Are you saying that the FSF lawyers have
>> reviewed the Option 3 license or the MIT license? And if so, that they
>> concluded that it was GPL compatible?
>>
>> If any review of the Option 3 license have occurred and FSF has made a
>> public statement about it, do you have a link to this statement?
>
> No public statement has been made.  Here is a W3C Member only link:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-psig/2011JanMar/0138.html

Looking forward to a more detailed explanation once this is made
public. As is demonstrated in this thread, there are several questions
could do with answers.

Another thing I'll say as someone that has been working with software
at both big and small companies, unless a license clearly an
unambiguously allows an action, or unless there is court rulings that
says that a license allows an action, the mere concern that it might
be allowed effectively prohibits it. In other words, since there are
no court cases to rely on, unless Option 3 clearly and unambiguously
allows copying content into a GPLed code, I would expect lawyers to
advice me not to take the risk involved in doing so.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 06:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC