IPL as a burden

[Eric Jacobs]

kmself at ix.netcom.com:

> 
> I believe OSD section 7 may cover that:
> 
>     7. Distribution of License.
> 
>     The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the 
>     program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
>     additional license by those parties.
> 
> =2E..in which case, the requirement for an additional runtime license by 
> the initial licensee would be incompatible with 7.  In other words:  all 
> rights associate with copying, modification, distribution, *or use* of 
> the program must be granted in the OSD-conformant license.
> 
> Still, it's interesting that this is an imputed, not an explicit, 
> property of the OSD.  Possible loophole?
> 

It could be. I think you mentioned the answer in a different post:


> The short explanation:
>
>    The GNU GPL (as with most free software licenses) grants rights to
>    _non authors_ (or copyrightholders) of a work _which they wouldn't
>    have, independently of the license_.

My question is: Is there any good reason that an Open Source license
should not consist solely of these kinds of rights?

Is there a reason why an Open Source license should prohibit or
conditionalize something that I already have the right to do (such as
execute code, given that I have obtained a copy of the code)?

Running the program is not a right that an Open Source license need
grant; it's a right that everyone already has. And while section 7
of the OSD specifies that the rights granted be universal without
the need for an additional license, it says nothing about the rights
taken away.

I'm wondering if we could eliminate these kinds of loopholes by
outlawing licenses that take rights away altogether.
--