Re: Option 3

On 03/23/2011 02:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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.

The current position of the Mozilla Foundation[1] allows "MIT, BSD, and 
similar permissive licenses".

> / Jonas

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html