UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

David Johnson wrote in part, in a message to license-discuss at opensource.org

> Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.
> 
> *) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. 
> *) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> *) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
> *) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the 
> public, so that the whole community benefits.
>
> I don't see where the original Artistic License (or any OSI approved license 
> including the APSL) fails to meet this definition.

I think a careful reading of the QPL shows it is not a Free
Software License, (even though the FSF web pages say it is)
for two reasons:

  1. QPL 6c compels you to disclose source to the original developer.
     I think this is against FSF "freedom to associate (or not)."

  2. QPL 6a is worded such that EVERY distributor must provide
     "at cost" copies to ANYONE with a binary copy, regardless
     of who distributed that binary.  This is against FSF
     "freedom to charge a profit."

     (This is OK with the OSD, because the OSD allows licenses
     which prohibit a profit.)

I have emailed the licensing at gnu.org questions about this
a number of times over the last year, but have never received
a reply.

There are other licenses, (like Jabber?), which also prohibit
profit when distributing copies.  My opinion is that neither
the FSF nor the OSI should approve such licenses.  But they do.

Forrest J. Cavalier III
Mib Software

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