Hi Richard, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:07 PM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > But leaving that aside, I would argue that this section, if activated > by "the original copyright holder", transforms GPLv2 into a > non-open-source, and indeed non-free-software, license. > I see and understand your policy position. I would have to consider it further to determine whether I agree. But I don't see how this position can possibly be logically consistent with the broad understanding of open source: A foundational license of both free software and open source, that is not FOSS if it is used as explicitly described within the license? That is the licensing equivalent of "you're holding it wrong." Such an assertion, if upheld, would substantially weaken my confidence that the OSD could be evaluated in a consistent fashion. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
