Subject: Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:46:15 -0700

begin Greg London quotation:

> I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2.  Since OSD #2 says
> "the program MUST include source code" There is nothing in the MIT
> license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition.

Ahem.  Nostalgic for freshman philosophy?

It would be physically possible to issue a binary without source
and claim it to be under the MIT licence, but nobody would be
particularly impressed, let alone call that open source.

I should point out that the OSD is not intended to be an AI routine,
just a set of guidelines that can be understood by reasonable people.
In practice, the Board is there, in part, to say "Very creative, and 
certainly a nice try, but of course the answer is no."

-- 
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and 
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window 
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to 
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3