click, click, boom

[Rick Moen]

begin Greg London quotation:

> 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.

_Licences_ are OSD-certified.  Software is open-source or not, in
accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing).
Beyond that, you're not telling us anything we don't already know.

> 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.

Only _licences_ potentially have legal enforceability.  The OSD is just
a set of guidelines published by the OSI for licence certiification.

> If I pick the MIT license, then OSD #2 is not enforcable.

See above.  You are suffering category confusion.

> I don't care what the "spirit" of the OSD is.

Well, then, the situation is pleasingly symmetrical, since the rest of
us aren't likely to care about your views, either.

> But the OSD is not a license. 

Nor does it purport to be.

> And it is the license that controls how a distribution may be
> re-distributed.

That is self-evident.

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

Do you have a point, or are you simply ruminating on the vagaries of
power and influence?

-- 
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and 
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window 
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to 
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3