Legal soundness comes to open source distribution

[M. Drew Streib]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Simply because a license is open source doesn't mean that we like the
> license terms or are willing to license it under those terms.  It seems
> to me *unreasonable* to require, through some vague OSD provision that

A better example:

A benchmark suite is licensed under an OSI license, with the use provision
that you cannot publish results with the open source version of the
suite. You may copy it, redistribute it, use it internally, etc, but
one of the most commercially useful features (a published result) is
not allowed by a use license.

Of course, a commercially licensed version is also available which
allows you to publish results.

A company can very easily cripple software via a use license. Should
that package call itself "open source"? 

-drew

-- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype at dtype.org>
Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20020802/3a80cbf1/attachment.sig>