Re: [DotGNU]UDDI (was Re: Our blindspot)

[John]

Not to be a Conehead here, but if the word compatible is going to be
changed in some official document to "convertable" in some official
document; can we spell the word as "convertible"? Convertable is
improper.

I agree that the intended word proposed is closer definitionally to what
FD wishes to express. Perhaps even closer is "liscense-convertible",
which is a term we would then define as granting certain rights legally.

John Le'Brecage

David Sugar wrote:
> 
> First, there are two very different concepts of what GPL "compatible"
> might mean being asserted here and this has some relevance to the FD
> charter.
> 
> In one case, a software might be licensed in a way that it can be
> relicensed under the GPL.  This is the case of BSD software certainly.
>  Software on disjunctive licenses that include the GPL as an option also
> fall into this category.  On the face of it, a license that can be used
> to release software under the GPL surely meets the FD charter.  Perhaps
> this category should be called GPL "convertable" so that it is more
> clear.  This in reality is a subset of "GPL compatible".
> 
> When one speaks of GPL "compatible", I believe this often is meant as
> something else; software that can be used with or linked with software
> under the GPL but which is itself under a different and non-conflicting
> license.  Clearly anything that is "convertable" to the GPL is in effect
> compatible as well, although the reverse need not be true.  What the FD
> charter says of this may well be different and more strict than what GNU
> says of this.  However, since BSD licensed code is "convertable" I would
> argue it's use is valid as per the FD charter, the only question being
> if FD requires it to be relicensed for it's use and distribution.
> 
> Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> >>I stand corrected, partially. I believe the FreeDevelopers charter
> >>limits us to copylefted software,
> >>
> >
> >One of the requirements for software to be "official DotGNU
> >software" is that it must be GPL'd.  (It seems that GPL with
> >linking exception, and LGPL are close enough to GPL to satisfy
> >this requirement).
> >
> >This is a restriction on what licenses we can use for software
> >that we create, not a restriction on what software we can use
> >as dependencies, and (where appropriate) distribute with
> >DotGNU.  All Free Software with GPL-compatible licensing is fine
> >for that.
> >
> >>or did I miss yet another memo?
> >>
> >>>According to this, BSD software (aka 'XFree86 Style') is Free, although
> >>>non-copylefted. (#TOCNon-CopyleftedFreeSoftware)
> >>>
> >
> >It's also GPL-compatible, meaning that if it turns out that we
> >want to make big changes, we are allowed to create a GPL'd
> >derivative work.  This is good enough so that we should feel
> >free to use it and contribute any small changes to the current
> >maintainers -- unless we actually make big, extensive changes,
> >or changes that the current maintainers don't want to include in
> >their version, the overhead of maintaining a GPL fork cannot be
> >justified in any way.
> >
> >Greetings, Norbert.
> >