Re: GPLv3

["Yaakov (Cygwin Ports)" <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>]

-----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?  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?

I understand that this goes against the general understanding that has
existed until now, but as we all have learned through following Groklaw,
it's not one's understanding of a contract that decides a case but the
actual language therein.

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


Yaakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGiVuHpiWmPGlmQSMRCLYgAJ0cNmz2EDKIKcfXG6bNF+juzzzBPQCgyzAc
Sn5F7WnnV568KZ+e41k3gPA=
=GIYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----