Updated license - please comment

[Mark Rafn]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> It has come to my attention off-list that I may need to clarify my comment
> on the proposed RSPL.

This is somewhat academic for me, since the RPSL has been amended to allow 
distribution under the almost-GPL.  I'm still curious about this line of 
reasoning though.

>  I made 3 observations; namely, that since  [1] section 2a of the proposed
> license is identical to section 2a of the GNU LGPL; [2] the proposed license
> has a similar purpose as the GNU LGPL (according the license poster); and
> [3] the GNU LGPL is an approved OSI License;

So any clause, from any OSI-approved license, is allowed in any other 
license?  Even if it's completely optional in the approved license and 
mandatory in the proposed one?

There are a number of clauses in open-source licenses that are non-free by 
themselves.  Heck, the GPL section 3b would likely not pass muster if it 
weren't accompanied by 3a.  

Likewise the LGPL restrictions on type of modification.  They are not
restrictions that should be allowed in software certified as open-source.  
The LGPL is free because of LGPL section 3, and a clause in a license
which does not include ALL freedoms from the LGPL has to be evaluated on
it's own, not "it's free in the LGPL so it's free here.".

> I am still unsure why the GNU LGPL does
> not serve the poster's purpose...particularly since the original section 2d
> of the RSPL has been removed from the proposed license.

This, I agree with.  Even more so since the latest draft includes a clause 
that allows it to be released under near-GPL terms.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3