- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:18:19 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: mjs@apple.com, lrosen@rosenlaw.com, public-html@w3.org, member-psig@w3.org
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
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 12:18:55 UTC