Is the "Guile" license OSI approved?

[phil hunt]

On Friday 30 November 2001  4:23 am, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:10:42 -0800 (PST)
>
> Andy Tai <lichengtai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open
> > Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program
> > (Eric Raymond) for Free Software), can there be any question that
> > a software license the Free Software Foundation published is not
> > Open Source?

If the FSF published licenses that didn't meet the OSD, then they wouldn't
be open source licenses. And in fact the FSF do just that; on their
webh site many of their documents are marked:

   Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire 
   article is permitted in any medium, provided this 
   notice is preserved.

Which prohibits changing and is thus not an open source license.

> Yes, tho for political reasons you're unlikely to ever see that
> response by OSI.  It is relatively easy to argue, for instance, that
> the viral properties of the GPL are excessively restrictive and
> violate the spirit if not intent of the OSS definition 

Only in the sense that it's easy to argue that 2 plus 2 is 5. When
the OSD was written (in its original incarnation the, DFSG) the GPL
was in mind specifically as one of the licenses that should meet this
definition.

-- 
*** Philip Hunt *** philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***

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