Fwd: Re: Updated license - please comment

[Mark Rafn]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Chuck Swiger 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?

IMO, pretty much yes.  

> 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.

It's nearly impossible to define "deliberately broken or malicious" in
such a way that would make the result free enough to be called
open-source.  It's very valid to re-use code in a way that violates
standards, spoofs headers to interoperate with other programs, etc.

Heck, even trying to specify that this code cannot be used in 
self-propagating malware would violate the "fields of endeavor" clause of 
the OSD.

It's perfectly reasonable to demand that forks are distinguished from the 
original "official" version, but open-source software does not prevent 
modifications just because we don't approve of the use.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3