Subject: Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
From: Chuck Swiger <chuck@codefab.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:45:42 -0400

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> In particular, I'd disagree with the "field of endeavor" clause if it is
>> to be applied to exclude software under a "free source but
>> no-commercial-redistribution" license from being OSD-compliant.
> 
> Such licenses are not OSD-compliant.  They've been repeatedly rejected.

So they have, but I still see value in the OSD even if it is flawed.

Someone recently made a comment that the GPL will always be an OSD-approved 
license regardless of what the actual definitions are; if true, what does this 
imply if there exists privileged licenses that are not being evaluated on 
their merits against the OSD definitions as they are written?

What happens if a proposed license is compliant with the OSD, yet conflicts 
with the GPL?  Would it be accurate to say that a fair number of people 
criticised Sean not on the merits of his license vis-a-vis the OSD, but for it 
being "anti-GPL"?  The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it 
concerns me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over 
others.

-- 
-Chuck

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3