UnitedLinux and "open source"

[David Johnson]

On Friday 14 June 2002 09:41 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> 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)."

Hmmm, the "freedom to associate",  while a very important freedom, is not 
listed in the freedoms above. And for good reason. If it were in there, the 
GPL would not qualify either, because it regulates to some extent who you 
must or must not associate with. If you give someone a binary, you are 
obligated to give them the source as well if they ask in the future. Thus, 
you can't discontinue an association. Additionally, in some circumstances you 
cannot "associate" with library authors who do not release their libraries 
under a GPL compatible license.

>   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."

Ditto for the GPL. If I get a binary from you and later request the sources, 
you must provide them to me for no more than the cost of the media. You 
cannot hold them hostage for a million dollars. The difference between the 
GPL and QPL is that the former only requires the distributor in question to 
provide the source at cost, while the latter requires this of any 
distributor.

As a side note, once you start adding freedoms to the definition you dilute 
it. It is a bad thing to not know if today's Free Software is going to be 
Free tomorrow. This is why I limit my definition of Free Software to the four 
freedoms listed and their logical extrapolations, as opposed to the sum total 
of RMS' writings. Clarifications are good, but they are not the definition.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3