Subject: RE: Best base license to pick?
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:07:36 -0800

> I would be relying on the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the OSD - this
> cant conflict with Paragraph 10 or it would be entirely otiose.
> 
> > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
> > form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
> > the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.

There is a difference between "license allows" and "license requires." But
anyway, that's just one person's opinion. I don't make decisions about
license approval.

As for John Cowan's suggestion that I allow a modified version of the OSL to
deal with this wrinkle, I'm not so inclined. Sorry. If the rules are simple
and the licenses few in number, I believe, we're much more likely to grow a
large commons of free and open source software.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom 
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Bligh [mailto:alex@alex.org.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:56 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'John Cowan'
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org; Alex Bligh
> Subject: RE: Best base license to pick?
> 
> 
> 
> --On 09 February 2005 06:44 -0800 Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I am listening. :-) But I don't believe that such a license would be
> > OSD-compliant. How can you force the form of downstream derivative works
> > without limiting the freedom to create derivative works?
> 
> I would be relying on the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the OSD - this
> cant conflict with Paragraph 10 or it would be entirely otiose.
> 
> > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
> > form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
> > the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
> 
> IE under the license, anyone can create a derivative work of any form, but
> it needs to be distributed as pristine original, plus patch files. As with
> patch files you could (for the sake of argument) remove everything, and
> generate an entirely different work, I can't see how it limits the freedom
> to create derivative works (given "diff -r").
> 
> NB I am presuming one can legitimately disallow patches that remove
> copyright and license strings as per the QPL.
> 
> Alex