Model Code for the OSD

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. rdixon at
Mon Jan 20 19:04:20 UTC 2003

We are assuming that there has not been complete past compliance with some
of the guidelines in the OSD; hence, this process is meant to make
compliance easier by clarifying and updating the OSD. IMHO, I think we all
know well-documented source code when we see it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Johnson" <david at>
To: <lrosen at>; "'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'"
<rdixon at>; "'Rod Dixon'" <rodd at>
Cc: <license-discuss at>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD

: On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
: > I would prefer requiring "all available documentation describing how to
: > modify the original work."  That means that a developer cannot hide
: > documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more
: > difficult.  /Larry
: I'm not even sure that "deliberately obfuscated source code" even extends
: the documentation. Removing documentation may be necessary to obfuscate
: source code, but removing it is rarely sufficient.
: The only type of documentation that is included in source code is
: Since the quality of comments in OSS projects ranges from the superb to
: dismal, defining obfuscation in terms of code comments is problematic. To
: take one  example, why should my modification of apache keep comments in
: place, when libsrvg has virtually none to begin with?
: Every section in the OSD specifically refers to the "license" or the
: attached to the program", except for section two. It needs to be read
: differently.
: My opinion is that "deliberately obfuscated source code" should be
: from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very
: subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD.
: --
: David Johnson
: ___________________
: pgp public key on website
: --
: license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list