Fw: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application ServerOd)
lewis at zquack.net
Thu Oct 3 18:57:30 UTC 2002
Robert Samuel White sez:
> Apparently, Russ does not want to approve my license. This is
> regardless of the fact that my license fully complies with the OSD and
> is UNIQUE to any other license.
> There is a reason I called this license the Modified Artistic License --
> it is based on it, but very different than it.
Also, not a lot different from the attribution assurance license, other
than the fact that it's longer, and the clause reading "You may not charge
any fees for the Package itself". He made both of these points in his
mail and you seem to be ignoring them.
> I feel my license should be approved, but if the OSI suddenly feels the
> need to selectively decide whose licenses are worthy and whose are not,
> regardless of the fact that they comply with the OSD, then that's out of
> my control, and yours.
> It seems to me that this kind of thinking is completely counter to the
> ideas behind open source itself.
Since we've obviously sunk to the level of making random, unproven and
unfounded statements just for the effect they give: first, Russ is more
likely to be in tune with the feelings of the open source community
than you are, and second, if anyone is trying to subvert the open source
movement it the kind of thinking behind the "Thou must not charge.." wording.
Open source (as a direct descendent of free software, the FSFs definition
of which explicitly permitted selling the product in question) *should*
allow people to sell the product. Whether the OSD says this is so or not
doesn't matter: the *spirit* of open source and free software (and their
respective communities) says any software calling itself open source
should allow it. Therefore, if anyone is counter-open-source-thinking
it's you for ignoring the opinion of the community, making a license
that doesn't conform to the open source community and complaining when
it gets rejected. The OSD didn't form the community, the community wrote
the OSD as a tool and as guidelines for anyone who wanted to co-operate.
> It is not my intention to create a controversy within this group. I do,
> however, think you have the right to know what kinds of decisions are
> being made by OSI, and why.
He's right on another important thing; we don't need more licenses. I think
your purposes would be served just as well by an existing license than
by writing a new one. Not that this by itself would exclude your license
from being certified (if the license actually compiled with the open
source community, which it doesnt, and with the OSD, which it almost
does), but it is a bit of shame.
> If this is the stance that OSI continues to impose, I will create a
> nicely worded document about my experience with them, and post to my
> website, and with all of my future licenses.
Very mature thing to do. Keep up the good work. :-)
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss