Re: [GNU-linux-libre] license of 'yggdrasil' software

[Denver Gingerich]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:39:13AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2023, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:
> 
> > probably would not have raised this question, if the FSD entry
> > for 'yggdrasil' was not still pending approval after two years,
[...]
> > with no discussion evident - so some discussion is in order -
> > why has it not been accepted?
[...]
> Or maybe it's a case of the FSF being super careful about unsettled law,
> more so because there's (ongoing?) litigation surrouding a related
> matter? (I vaguely recall reading news about a lawsuit about a license
> that added restrictions to the GPL, but the details escape me)

You're probably thinking of the case described here:

  https://sfconservancy.org/news/2023/feb/09/kuhn-neo4j-purethink-expert-report/

In particular: 'Case about the “further restrictions” removal provision of the 
AGPLv3 continues after counterclaim filing'.

Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has been following this case closely and 
reporting on it as it proceeds.  I haven't seen the FSF say anything about it, 
though they did link to SFC's prior post on it in this newsletter:

  https://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter/2022/april

So maybe FSF prefers people go to SFC for the latest on the case?  In any 
situation, that's what I know about the matter myself.

Denver