click, click, boom

Greg London greglondon at
Wed Sep 26 07:07:07 UTC 2001

Rick Moen wrote:
> begin Greg London quotation:
> 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.

If someone puts out a bunch of source code under
the MIT license, and the distro is OSI certifiable,
there is nothing to prevent someone else from
redistributing it in binary form only. Their only
"penalty" is that they lose OSI certification.

There is no legal enforcements in the MIT license
to require the source be included with the dist
or be made publicly available. And OSD certification
is not enforcable, it can only be revoked.

so, all I'm saying is that if someone looks at
the OSD and likes it, they can't just go and
pick any OSI approved license and have it give
legal enforcability of all the OSD bullets.

If I pick the MIT license, then OSD #2 is not 
enforcable. The OSI certification can only
be revoked. Other than revoking the certification,
I see no "teeth" to OSI certification. any
other disputes then drop down to the level
of the license, which may allow actions that
are against the OSD.

I don't care what the "spirit" of the OSD is.
You can force-feed all the common sense
you want about the spirit of the OSD.
But the OSD is not a license. And it is the
license that controls how a distribution may
be re-distributed. Other than the threat of 
revoking teh OSI certification mark from a 
distribution, OSI has no recourse to
enforce the "spirit of the OSD" if the 
license used in the distro allows said spirit
to be broken.

Unless there is some other implication of
enforcemnet to OSI certification that I am 
unaware of.

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list