Fwd: Re: Updated license - please comment
Mark Rafn
dagon at dagon.net
Mon Jun 23 16:48:06 UTC 2003
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
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list