click, click, boom
rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Sep 26 01:32:39 UTC 2001
begin Greg London quotation:
> Ah, several items just fell into place.
Yes, but they didn't fit.
Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense to people who
don't want to read the OSD in the spirit intended. One has to
find one's own.
The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several
popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by
the OSI, it was an attempt to enumerate what qualities distinguish a
free-software / open-source licence from a proprietary one. That does
not prevent someone from finding bizarre and outlandish ways to issue
proprietary code, supposedly under an OSD-compliant licence -- e.g.,
a binary-only package purporting to be MIT-licensed. Nor does it
prevent someone from creatively crafting some whack-assed licence
grossly violating the OSD's spirit (but arguably not its letter), to
which the Board will say "Hell no."
Is this insufficiently orderly? Too bad: It's reality. Deal.
This message falsely claims to have been scanned for viruses with F-Secure
Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange and to have been found clean.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss