gregjohn wrote:
> But I'm surprised that you appeared to be more worried about OSI than GPL3.
> Right now, some linux distros turn their nose at the current license, and I
> thought you were already OSI-approved. Now I'd respect your choice either
> way, but wondering why you'd strive for OSI if GPL3 were in the bag. As far
> as "acceptance," wouldn't GPL3 suffice?
> thanks.

OSI is a non-profit institution that owns the phrase "Open Source". If 
they "like" your license, then you can call your program Open Source. 
The current POV license does not meet the OSI's criteria to be called 
Open Source.

GPLv3 has not yet received the OSI's approval as an Open Source license, 
but it's pretty much a given that it will. The first two versions of the 
GPL, along with the BSD license (and possibly the MIT license), were 
what pretty much defined Open Source in the first place.

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you start wishing you were 
actually in that futuristic mandelbrotian landscape you just rendered.
     -- fish-head

Post a reply to this message