Subject: RE: Question on OSD #5
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:53:46 -0800

> > Look guys, there's no difference between what I was thinking about
> > and what was already approved under the Jabber Open Source License
> > Section 5:
> 
> At the moment, that page (http://opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php)
> is broken on the website so I can't verify your quote.  It does say that
> license is deprecated, so I don't think the OSI would be eager to
> approve a license that attempted to do the same thing.

As the author of the now-deprecated Jabber license, I can tell you that
there is nothing particularly unique about that Section 5. Here is the same
concept in the Mozilla 1.1 license, which the Jabber license at the time
attempted to emulate:

  4. Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation.
  If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this
  License with respect to some or all of the Covered Code due to 
  statute, judicial order, or regulation then You must: (a) comply with
  the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible; and (b) 
  describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description 
  must be included in the LEGAL file described in Section 3.4 and must
  be included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except to the
  extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be
  sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill to be able to 
  understand it.

What's wrong with that? Do we need a new license for that?

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:42 PM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: Question on OSD #5
<snip>