Subject: RE: Best base license to pick?
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:55:32 +0000



--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