Subject: Re: OVPL summary
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:03:00 +0100

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:53:18AM +1000, Chris Yoo wrote:

> IMHO, to create a precedent that would see such a model as 'non open source'
> would be an unfortunate development, particularly in light of the growing
> interest in open source by closed source software players. 

While I tend to be happy with licenses of this sort (section 3b of the 
QPL is fairly similar), this argument isn't very compelling. While it's 
desirable for more people to produce open source software, this 
shouldn't be due to us redefining "open source" in a way that reduces 
the rights we expect people to have. If Microsoft offered us the 
entirity of the sourcecode to Windows under a license that was almost 
OSD compliant, that shouldn't cause us to rewrite the OSD just so we 
could have more open source code.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org