RE: GPLv3

["Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>]

On 02 July 2007 21:10, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we
>> just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license
>> according to the definitions.  As Brian already noted, as soon as the
>> OSI certifies the GPLv3, the exemption clause from
>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html will also cover GPLv3'ed packages.
> 
> IANAL, but I am a stickler for words, so if I may point out the following:
> 
> There has always been an understanding that a license has to be
> OSI-approved to fall under the exception clause of the Cygwin license.
> But the clause doesn't say "approved by the OSI", rather it says:
> 
> "... a license that complies with the Open Source definition ..."
> 
> Complies according to whom?

  By definition: according to the judgement of whoever wrote that paragraph
and that license, which is to say, according to RH legal team.

>  If IMHO, the GPLv3 does comply with the
> definition as published at the provided URL, who says I need to wait for
> the OSI to actually certify it as such?

  You don't, as long as you are confident that the licensors will concur with
your MHO.  Well, technically, you don't have to wait for anything ever: this
is a civil matter, there are no restraining injunctions, it would be up to RH
legal to decide whether they felt GPLv3 complies, in which case they wouldn't
sue your, or whether they felt it doesn't, in which case they would have the
option of suing you, in the event of which it would then still be up to a
court to decide whether the standards by which they have adjudged whether it
'complies' or not are reasonable under the standards by which civil contracts
are judged, and hence enforcable, or not, and hence not.  Herein lies both
your security - they don't /have/ to sue you if they don't want to, even if
something you do doesn't technically live up to the word of the license,
because they are at liberty to decide for themselves if it 'complies' or note
- and also your risk, because none of it is defined with mathematical rigour,
there is an element of judgement to all the phraseology used, and it's a
matter of contract law.  Note very importantly the difference between whether
X 'complies with' Y, which is a subjective judgement, and whether X is
*certified as* Y, which is a matter of fact or not according to the decision
of the relevant certifying body.

> Could Red Hat's lawyers take another look at the language and provide
> their opinion on this?

  What they say will - by definition - be definitive :-)

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....