a proposed change to the OSD

[John Cowan]

James E. Harrell, Jr. scripsit:

> I just tried to visit the website to see if BitKeeper's license
> is already OSD approved- but the site isn't there. It's part of my
> argument, so I'll go out on a limb and assume it is OSD approved. If
> not, you can safely ignore part of this email, though it's only half
> of the argument. :)

Bitkeeper's license is not and never has been an OSI-approved Open Source
license.

> I would think it bad faith to change the definition based on a pending
> license in order to be able to specifically exclude this license. This may
> not be the case- but from the (very) outside- that's what it looks like.

On the contrary.  The OSD is an attempt to capture a certain spirit in a
form of words.  If a license is presented that conforms to the form of
words but violates the spirit, it is appropriate to change the form.
This is not ex post facto, because it affects a license proposed for
approval, not one already approved.  In addition, it is not a *punishment*
to be denied license approval.

As to already-approved licenses, they could be grandfathered.

> I don't see significant harm in users indicating consent via click-wrap. 

See my earlier posting.  While this sounds tolerable for individual
applications, it gets difficult for component libraries -- and almost any
program can be a "component" in scripting situations.  And if once-and-for-
all consent is sufficient, who maintains a sufficiently secure consent
database, and when is consent asked for?  On a multi-user system, asking
at installation time is insufficient, for new persons may be added whose
consent must also be extracted.

Use restrictions are a bad idea because they are a *practical* nightmare,
just as notice requirements (if you use my code, you must give notice)
was a practical nightmare.

> Maybe I'm in the wrong place? If click-wrap is specifically excluded,
> then our product and desired license also won't meet the OSD. So maybe
> it will just have to be open source (with a lower case "O" and "S")?

No one can stop you from saying so; the language is free for all to use.
But please don't.  It is disingenuous and will bring you bad publicity.

-- 
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, "Oxen of the Sun"       jcowan at reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3