[discuss] License Approval Request: Macromedia Open Source License

[David Johnson]

On Friday 21 June 2002 05:12 pm, Nathan Kelley wrote:

> Item 3.IV in the license states that: "...other than in the event that
> such Contributor is Macromedia, (A) states that source code for the
> Program is available from such Contributor, and (B) informs licensees
> how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium
> customarily used for software exchange."
>
> This conflicts with Open Source Definition, item 2, which states:
> "...Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code,
> there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for
> no more than a reasonable reproduction cost..."

The problem with the OSD is that parts of it refer to the license and other 
parts to the software. Item two refers to the software. Thus, the source code 
must be available, but there needn't be anything in the license that mandates 
this.

Prime examples are the BSD and MIT licenses, which have no requirement to 
redistribute the source. Yet they are approved licenses.

As long as Macromedia makes its source code available, then their software is 
Open Source (pending approval of this license or their adoption of another). 
But the minute they start hiding their source or charging unreasonable fees, 
then the software, but not the license, will cease to be open.

But the very fact that you are concerned about this inequity in the license 
points out a serious flaw in it. All software licenses that I have seen, 
including the BSD, MIT and GPL, are inequitable in favor of the author. But 
people don't like it when you loudly proclaim that inequity in your license 
text. Particularly potential contributors and collaborators.

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