From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-07 07:36:26 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge
Date: 07 Feb 2002 10:29:59 -0500
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Message-ID: <u4rktqphk.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1013096057 3762 128.183.220.71 (7 Feb 2002
 15:34:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Feb 2002 15:34:17 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19715
Date: 2002-02-07T15:34:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
> licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
> licence is not an official OSI licence.
> 
> So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?
> 2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
>     has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
>     one to try?
> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>     that?
> 4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
>     name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?
> 
> Comments, suggestions?

I was not aware of any of these issues. I strongly suggest we get the
GMGPL approved as an OSI license.

Apparently OSI's website is www.opensource.org (try www.osi.org just
for kicks :).

The list of currently approved licenses is at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Since the GPL and the LGPL are approved, and the GMGPL is sort of
halfway between those, I don't think there is any technical issue to
getting it approved.

This page describes the process of getting a license approved:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

I guess anyone can take the initiative to get the GMGPL approved, but
it seems like ACT should, if they want to.

-- 
-- Stephe