Subject: Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?
From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:31:01 -0600
Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:31:01 -0600
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 06:03:21PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin@apotheon.com):
> 
> > I'd have agreed -- but I'd also say that it *is* open source wherever the
> > license applied, but not the patent, just as I'd say that SQLite is open
> > source wherever its public domain status was accepted by law, but not
> > where it wasn't.
> 
> And I'd certainly not mind your characterisation of a work covered by 
> enforced and expensive patents -- as long as you included a pedantic
> footnote of your own, saying 'When I say mod ssl is open source in the
> USA, I mean the licence theoretically gives you open source rights, even
> though those rights are mostly nullified by your patent obligations to
> RSA Data Security, Inc.'

Your response makes me think that you read what I said as claiming it's
open source even if patents prohibit people from treating it as open
source.  That is not what I said.


> 
> Sounds pretty silly to insist on a theoretical category that inherently
> rests on conveyance of legal rights, in cases where you know those
> rights aren't available, but -- hey -- you write your coverage any way
> you want, and the rest of us will complain later.

I really have no idea what you're implying here.  Does it have something
to do with the fact you apparently misunderstood what I said about
patents?

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]