ATT SOURCE CODE AGREEMENT Version 1.2C

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Mark Wells <mark at pc-intouch.com>
> But the OSD doesn't have any rules against 'unreasonable requirements'.
> In theory, a license with unreasonable requirements could pass the OSD.
> Now, if a license could pass the OSD even though the people who wrote the
> OSD (i.e. you) say it's not Open Source, the OSD needs to be adjusted.

First, the OSD doesn't stand alone. It rests on the entire body of copyright
and contract law. Now, tell me that any judge would rule a contract with
such an obnoxious requirement enforceable.

Second, an obnoxious requirement is tantamount to a prohibition, and thus
could be shown to directly violate OSD requirements.

Third, no responsible person would endorse such a license as being Open Source.

Fourth, nobody in their right mind would except such a license, which is
really the ultimate test, isn't it?

> Patent licenses cover designs.  Software licenses cover implementations.
> 
> If the software uses patented technology, the license should include a
> grant of permission to use *that particular implementation* of the
> patented algorithm.

Most of them convey a somewhat broader grant, for which I am glad.

Note also that the purpose of the OSD and the Open Source campaign is to
help software business meet the community at a point that both can live with.
Thus, it's not about compelling the community to do obnoxious things, nor
is it about compelling business to bend over backwards unnecessarily.

	Thanks

	Bruce