Subject: RE: Certification Mark: OSI Certified
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:52:52 -0700

No, I intentionally removed the clause relating to public domain software.
That was removed for reasons that are best discussed separately if people
are interested.  The "public domain" was the subject of an intense
discussion among the OSI board a couple of months ago.  To briefly
summarize, I believe the legal community generally holds that the term
"public domain" has little relevance to useful software -- by which I mean
software written and/or published since 1978.  /Larry

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Johnson [mailto:david@usermode.org]
>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:46 AM
>To: Lawrence E. Rosen
>Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
>Subject: Re: Certification Mark: OSI Certified
>
>
>On Thursday April 12 2001 07:05 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>
>> On the page http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html I have
>> requested the following changes:
>
>Changing the "with an approved license" to "under an approved
>license" makes
>a huge difference. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to solve the problem of
>distributing source-less software under the MIT license.
>
>(I'm assuming that you've kept in the clause relating to public domain
>software...)
>
>--
>David Johnson
>___________________
>http://www.usermode.org
>