Updated license - please comment

[Mark Rafn]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> : Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible?  It violates
> : OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,

> I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author
> has told us about his purpose.

I at least partially disagree.  Open source licenses should be considered
by OSI in the context of open source software.  

> The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense when you consider its
> purpose.

The LGPL made sense to me when I read LGPL section 3.  Without that, I 
very much hope it wouldn't be considered open source.

> We are told that RSPL is intended to be used for libraries, which is
> similar to one the principle purposes of the GNU LGPL. The GNU LGPL is
> an OSD compliant and OSI-approved open source license.

I have zero objection to RPI using the LGPL.  In fact I heartily recommend 
it, and I believe it meets their needs at this point if they simply add an 
extra-license note that work submitted to RPI becomes the property of RPI.

> Section 2a, of the RSPL, which states that "The modified work must itself be
> a software library" is identical to the GNU LGPL. Hence, no problem there.

This requirement is problem in the LGPL, and a big problem in the RPSL.  
It is no problem in the LGPL because LGPL section 3 makes it an optional
requirement.  In the RPSL, it's an absolute requirement.  You cannot take
restrictive bits of an open-source license, remove the permissive bits,
and expect the result to be considered open-source. 
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3