OSD modification regarding what license can require of

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Russell Nelson wrote, in part.

> Richard Stallman writes:
>  > I think these issues should be judged by the substance of the
>  > requirement rather than by the legal hook which is used to impose it.
>  > For instance, a requirement to make source available to users is
>  > substantively a requirement of distribution rather than a restriction
>  > on use.
>  > 
>  > At present we are planning to try to handle the ASP problem in the GPL
>  > through a limitation on a certain kind of modification--that you can't
>  > delete or disable a command that lets the user download source (if the
>  > program has one to start with).  Lawyers we have consulted think that
>  > will work.
> 
> I doubt we would approve such a license.  We refused to approve Larry

The details of each license are important.  How can we decide
that a license would not be approved without the actual license?

Such clauses are not clear OSD conflicts because there are already
OSI approved licenses with similar clauses.

  The GPL 2c requires a run-time note under certain conditions.

  The OSI-approved the W3C license which has a requirement of
  displaying a notice to users.  (Let's be clear, as I read it,
  that clause is not simply requiring a notice with a
  distributed copy.  I think it catches ASPs.)  The W3C is not
  copyleft.  But what if it were.....?

How do those clauses differ from what Richard is discussing?

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