OSD modification regarding what license can require of

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Thu Mar 14 07:14:08 UTC 2002

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 01:40:08AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
> publication of sources upon "deployment."
Great. I'd like to hear comments upon the probability that this can be
enforced, and the way the license must be presented to the user.

> So Bruce, (correct me if I am wrong), your goal is OSD changes
> which better ensure user freedom, but still allow approval
> of the APSL (and as-yet-unwritten licenses with clauses like
> you mentioned.)  

Yes about maximizing user freedom, and I can state the other half
of that in a more positive manner:

The quid-pro-quo between the original contributor and subsequent
creators of derived works, as exemplified in the GPL but not limited
to the GPL, is a critical component of Open Source. Open Source might
well fail if it ever becomes impossible to enforce such a quid-pro-quo.
It should _not_ be mandiatory that _every_ OSI-approved license stipulate
a quid-pro-quo, only that it be possible to implement one within an
OSI-approved license.


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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list