Subject: Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:51:49 -0400 (EDT)

John Cowan writes:
 > Russell Nelson scripsit:
 > 
 > > If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
 > > source.  
 > 
 > The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
 > programs.

Indeed.  One has to wonder whether the GPL should be an approved
license.  Okay, so obviously we have to accept the GPL.  How are we
then to distinguish between Richard's good restrictions on
modifications from Larry's bad restrictions on modifications?

Maybe we need a GFPL, the General Free Public License, which allows
all modifications but which is otherwise the GPL?  I haven't looked at 
it in detail yet, but perhaps that is exactly what Larry's OSL is.

 > All OS licenses, or nearly all, prevent you from modifying
 > the copyright notices.

That's a freedom you don't have regardless of what the license says.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |  New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |         IANAE
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |  I Am Not An Economist
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3