OpenLDAP license

Frank LaMonica frankl at
Sun Apr 15 13:36:11 UTC 2001

I agree with you completely.  BSD is one of the only software licenses
that allows PEOPLE the freedom they need to establish their own business
objectives.  I would go even further to say that there are only three
things that are both necessary and sufficient for software in order to
allow the benefits of open source to be realized by the computer
industry.  They are: open API's, data formats, and OS infrastructure. 
Any software that attempts to control, restrict, place royalties upon,
or hinder in any way, any of those three aspects of open source, should
be rejected in an open source system.  Any other software that is
released with full source code is nice, but not at all necessary. 

David Johnson wrote:
> On Friday April 13 2001 06:14 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > #2:  BSD is mute.  It does not encapsulate any portion of #2.
> But it does comply. Given source code under the BSD license, the program does
> indeed contain source code. No question about it. The OSi is not requiring
> that certified licenses only be used for Open Source exclusively, only that
> they can be.
> > #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.
> > #7:  BSD does not comply. (BSD code could be distributed in binary-only
> > form with completely different and more restrictive licensing terms than
> > the BSD).
> But it does comply! The BSD license does not operate independently of
> copyright law. You must place the license within the framework of the law.
> And the law clearly says that the author retains the priviledge of changing
> the distribution terms.
> The "Program" must, by law, be distributed under the exact terms of the BSD
> license. You have not been given any rights to change the distribution terms.
> However, you may only apply different terms to you own works, such as a
> derivitive of the Program. But that would no longer be the Program.
> > Why?  OSI Certification doesn't determine if your individual distribution
> > is "open source" or not.  Only the recipients of your work can make that
> > determination.  If you think it's important to the recipients of your work
> > that the OSI certifies your release, then you should use a license which
> > encapsulates the OSD.
> Okay, here is the harm done by decertifying licenses:
> >From, "SourceForge is a free service to Open Source
> developers..." (with the 'Open Source' being a link to,
> and thus the OSD).
> >From, "We only accept products with OSI Certified
> Licenses".
> I'm really not getting your hostility to the BSD license. I can certainly
> understand you not approving of it personally, but I can't understand why you
> don't think it isn't Free in the FSF sense and Open in the OSI sense. The
> primary focus of the FSF and OSI has always been upon the licensee (the user)
> and not the licensor. When my users receive my software, the BSD license
> allows them every right, priviledge and permission that the FSF and OSI seek
> to enumerate, promote and defend.
> --
> David Johnson
> ___________________
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: frankl.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 326 bytes
Desc: Card for Frank LaMonica
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list