OSD fuzziness/omissions?

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

In analyzing licenses for the LIDESC project
     http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/index.htm

there are a few types of clauses which in my mind do
not meet the spirit of the OSD, but are not clearly
rejected by it.

Some of these came up by looking at which licenses pass
the OSD, but are rejected by the FSF.  (A pretty interesting
point of study.)

I know there is a move to tighten up the OSD.  Here are
some cases that might be discussed further.

1. Usage restrictions.  The OSD relies on the guarantee
   of the right to run the software made by 17 USC for an owner
   of a copy.  But if someone is not an owner of a copy,
   and just a license holder, or not under 17 USC, the
   OSD provides no help.

   The open source shareware licenses I proposed illustrate
   this.  But there are other usage restrictions which have come up.
   For example:
        ``Disclosure of test results, except for the purposes of
        reporting a suspected problem in the execution of the tests,
        or claims of "passing the tests" are not permitted without the
        previous written consent of X/Open (The Open Group).''

2. OSD says may not discriminate.  But GPL 3c makes a distinction
   between commercial and non-commercial permissions.  Under what
   interpretation of the OSD is that allowed?  This impacts the
   wording LIDESC uses for the symbolic tag librock_USE_C_DISCRIM.

3. In Bruce's APSL 1.0 commentary, 
          http://perens.com/Articles/APSL.html
   he says that APSL 1.0 is rejectable for a number of reasons
   which aren't clearly against the OSD in my mind, but certainly
   they are against the spirit.  

   I reference the LIDESC symbolic tags below.  For a discussion,
   read the APSL.html commentary.

     RIGHTS_TEMP: For those who do nothing to breach the license, are
                 distribution, use, or other rights revocable, or
                 temporary.  (For example: time-limited or based on continued existence or
                 non-existence of approval, relationship, law, 
                 entity, intellectual property litigation brought
                 by others, etc.)

     3NOTE*: Notification of a specific party is is required.

     3MSRC*: Giving modified sources to a specific party is required.

   If someone could document where they are against the OSD, then I
   will add the OSD section numbers to the report when such licenses
   are reported in conflict.  If they aren't covered by the present
   wording of the OSD, maybe they should be in a future version.

4. OSD #8 rejects tieing a license to a specific product.  But
   what about the case where a license says something may NOT
   be used (or distributed) with a specific product?  

Over the years I have read licenses which had some of the above.
But I did not collect them as examples.  I am hoping such
licenses will be contributed to the project as examples.


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3