Updated license - please comment

[Rod Dixon]

I think there are two issues here: [1] the section 2a requirement that
limits the rights granted to the public distribution of libraries and [2]
the licensor's intent to permit dynamic linking of the open source library
with non-free software. If this is correct, then section 3 of the LGPL,
which seems to allow an irreversible switch to the GPL, is not pertinent
to the licensor's need.

Rod


On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:

> 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
>

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