sambc at nights.force9.co.uk
Sat Apr 7 13:00:51 UTC 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Nelson" <nelson at crynwr.com>
> David Johnson writes:
> > "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". The license could
> > construed as discriminating against fields of endeavor. The APSL
> > restrictions upon commercial usage that it does not place upon
> > usage. The word "commercial" is specifically used as a criteria in
> > determining which restrictions and conditions apply. IANAL.
> That would be a bit of a stretch. That clause is in there because
> some people were in the habit of saying that some software could only
> be used in academia, or couldn't be used by the U.S. military. Not
> sure that we could paint it with such a broad brush as "commercial".
It is a discrimination, though - it doesn't stop people in certain
group from doing something, it merely requires people in one group to do
something differently. However, this is a discrimination, and under the
OSD it cannot be open source. To be free of discrimination angainst
groups or fields of endeavour it must give them all the same terms and
treat them identically. Forbidding use is not the only form of
> My own personal interpretation, <disclaimer>not to be confused with
> the entire board's interpretation</disclaimer>, is that not unrelated
> restrictions should be allowed. It's okay for an open source license
> to not license a company's trademark. It's okay for an open source
> license to require addition of your own copyright. It's okay for an
> open source license to require attribution. And it's okay for an
> open source license to require notification.
I would tend to agree - however, IANAL, but I have heard it said by
people on this list who may be more knowledgeable, that requiring
private modifcations to be made public may be unenforceable under law. I
have no idea myself, but this came up in a similar discussion a few
months ago, IIRC, so I thought it worth bringing up...
More information about the License-discuss