Subject: Re: a proposed change to the OSD
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:50:10 -0400 (EDT)

Giacomo A. Catenazzi writes:
 > Russell Nelson wrote:
 > > I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
 > > meeting next Thursday.  It is simply this:
 > > 
 > > 0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
 > > obtained copy of a work.
 > > 
 > > Anybody have problems with this?  Does this have any problems?
 > 
 > I've two questions:
 > Why this change?

Because over the lifetime of OSI, various people have tried to
interpret the OSD as allowing restrictions on usage.

 > What is really changed by this?
 > [Somebody can give me some example of real licenses that don't follow
 > this point? (Bitkeeper's public license?)]

Yes, BitKeeper's public license.  But there's also a pending license
(Sybase) which requires that users indicate their assent to the
license through click-wrap or equivalent.  *Users*.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3