Fwd: Re: Updated license - please comment

[David Presotto]

On Sun Jun 22 15:40:06 EDT 2003, chuck at codefab.com wrote:
> [ ...I haven't seen this message appear on the list; resend... ]
> 
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> > It may not be pertinent to the licensor's need.  I very much hope it is 
> > pertinent to OSI's need to restrict use of it's service mark only to 
> > software which can be freely modified.
> 
> Does OSD #3 mean that "The license must allow [ALL] modifications and derived
> works, ...", without any restrictions?  If the OSD should be interpreted to
> mandate that a compliant license may not forbid deliberately broken or malicious
> redistributions, then my frank opinion is that the OSD should be changed.

I understand where someone wouldn't want their code destroyed, perverted,
whatever.  However, broken or malicious is a bit of a judgement call, is
it not?  I have a hard time seeing where the line would be drawn.

OSD #4 already provides a way for an author to distinguish what constitutes
an `authentic' version.  Might that not be enough?  Then a body (person
whatever) can bless the authentic/proven-correct/secure/whatever version
but everyone can still distribute modifications.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3