Fwd: Re: Updated license - please comment
David Presotto
presotto at closedmind.org
Sun Jun 22 20:39:57 UTC 2003
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
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list