OSD fuzziness/omissions?

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Thanks, please post whatever else you come across regarding the OSD.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:mibsoft at mibsoftware.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: forrest at mibsoftware.com
> Subject: OSD fuzziness/omissions?
> 
> 
> 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
> 

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