BSD and OSD

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Wed, 24 May 2000, W. Yip wrote:

> I am having problems reconciling the BSD with the Open Source Definition
> (OSD).
> 
> s.1 OSD requires 'free REdistribution'. 
> 
> "The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^ replace with 'The BSD license' to test.

The BSD license does not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
program[s?] from several sources.  The BSD license does not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.

Since that statement is true, the BSD license does not fail that part of the
OSD.

> software as a component of an aggregate softrware distribution containing
> program from several sources. The license may not require a royalty or
> other fee for such sale"
> 
> I understand this to mean that the copyright holder can charge money for
> the initial first license, but cannot do so for subsequent redistribution
> made by his recipient.
> 
> But the BSD enables a licensee to ADD restrictions to redistribution,
> INCLUDING a requirement of payment, does it not?

Yup, so it's possible to take a derivative work of BSD-licensed code and
prevent it from Open Source.

> How then is the BSD an Open Source license?
> 
> Am I missing something here?

Yeah, the license under question doesn't restrict these things, but it
doesn't protect them from being restricted.  There's a subtle difference,
and the OSD only requires the former.

In my view.

 Matthew Weigel
 Programmer/Sysadmin/Student
 weigel+ at pitt.edu