OpenLDAP license

Karsten M. Self kmself at
Sat Apr 14 05:10:30 UTC 2001

on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:09:53PM +0000, David Johnson (david at wrote:
> On Friday April 13 2001 06:14 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:

> > #3:  BSD complies, but is weak because it does not use a copyleft mechanism
> > to require that the right to make derived works to be carried forward to
> > each recipient. 
> There's nothing in #3 that requires the the permissions to be carried forward.
> It doesn't say "must require", only "must allow".
> > [ as a side note, I think this is one of the places where the OSD itself is
> > flawed.  The language of #2 should say, in my opinion:  "The license must
> > allow modifications and derived works, and must REQUIRE them to be
> > distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
> > ]
> Then you would have to dump out all non-copyleft licenses (as the general 
> community defines copyleft). And you would have to through out most 
> dual-licensed programs as well. Copyleft licenses may be the preferred 
> licenses of the FSF, but they are not the only ones. And this isn't the FSF.
> There may possibly be a need in some community for a mechanism to determine 
> the copylefted-ness or perpetualness of licenses. But that's not the purpose 
> of the OSI.

Ryan's got a view, to which he may or may not be entitled, which is at
odds with the general consensus here.  The point's you're making have
been explained to him.  I generally stop arguing when the argument
starts iterating.  It's iterated about three times now.

Ryan *has* uncovered an interesting, and potentially significant, issue
regarding the OSD, Frank Hecker's comments in this thread explore

I'd suggest dropping this particular branch of the thread, however.


Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list