Wording in Open Source Definition
Seth David Schoen
schoen at loyalty.org
Fri Feb 16 19:51:52 UTC 2001
John Cowan writes:
> Richard Boulton scripsit:
> > We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> > list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
> > to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
> The answer is clearly "no".
> > If the answer is no, I humbly suggest that the "may not" be changed to
> > "must not" where it appears in clause 1, and that "free" be changed to
> > "free-of-cost" in the rationale for clause 1, to avoid others falling into
> > this same argument.
> I think you are absolutely right, and "may not" should be changed to
> "must not" everywhere.
> As evidence that "may not" means "must not" in this document, however,
> consider clause 6. The second sentence purports to be an example of
> the general principle given in the first sentence, yet the second
> sentence reads "may not" where the first reads "must not".
Maybe the OSD should be written to use terms like MAY, MUST, and
SHOULD as defined by RFC 2119:
(And it could then say so.)
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
More information about the License-discuss