Misunderstanding of the basics?

[Ralf Schwoebel]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> But if you look at
>     http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
> you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring.
> Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works.  Your
> license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be
> unmodified.

Thanks Ian,

to get back to the text :-), that is not true:

2.2.: ...intraDAT hereby grants you....
a) to use, reproduce, modify, display and perform the IPL code....

so?

> If code with a license key check is released under the GPL, I
> certainly am allowed to remove or modify the check for the license
> key.  What makes you believe otherwise?

You have to mark that:

GPL 2.a)
"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change."

IPL 2.2.b)
"...right... to use parts of the IPL Code in your software you shall
always state...which lines..."

And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL
says you MUST,
I can not see why the OSI should not accept that?

> Hardly.  We're just afraid to use the ugly word ``proprietary'' in
> combination with the words ``open source.''  You are showing a
> proprietary license and calling it open source.  You don't get to
> redefine words like that.

If you compare the IPL with the other licenses, you will find that most
of
the definitions are the same or have the same intentions from the point
of
view of the lawyers. This is why I am so irritated by that discussion...
Most of the things mentioned in the earlier mails where against
definitions
you find in the other licenses as well. Hello?

> Hey, if you want to say that open source can't work, I may disagree
> with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.  But if you want to

hihihi, this company employs a lot OpenSource fanatics (me included) and
is
working in that area for around 4 years now (we only have Linux
products), 
that is why we try to start this discussion here. But the immediate
response 
was more than hostile. I wonder if somebody did the comparison work and
is entitled to point out exact problems. All I got were critics against
the
other licenses on opensource.org.

> promulgate a new definition of open source because you believe the
> current one can't work, then I'm afraid that I have to disagree.

That is not what we are doing. We are posting a license, approved for
our strange german laws, combined with the essence out of other licenses
and run into a: This is evil!

I will not mention all the paragraphs that are almost identical with
the other licenses on opensource.org, but the fight against us is 
strange, if you do a "diff" with some of these :-/

--
best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796 0000