[Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think the concern boils down to reciprocal licenses being mutually compatible.  The LGPL3 includes the GPL by reference but it applies to a specific usage situation.  Licenses like the Mozilla Public License are reciprocal, but not compatible with the GPL or the LGPL3, and that leads projects to have to dual license (or more), and ask for that permission in their inbound licensing.

The share-alikeness of these licenses is only for the same license regime, not all reciprocal regimes.  And they don't all treat patents the same if they address patents at all.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org] On Behalf Of Walter van Holst
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:37
To: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing

On 6/22/11 7:30 PM, Allison Randal wrote:

> My proposal, based on Bradley's comments, is that we drop Option Four,
> and in our usage guide explain that the best way to capture "only
> copyleft licenses" is Option Two with an explicit list of the copyleft
> licenses the project supports.

Not having participated in today's call I may be giving a redundant 
option: why not rephrase option 4 as one explicitly mentioning all 
currently known copyleft licenses that are certified by OSI? Or maybe a 
subset (to curb license proliferation).

Regards,

  Walter
_______________________________________________
Harmony-Drafting mailing list
Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting