OSD#5 needs a patch?

[Chuck Swiger]

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 01:42 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck at codefab.com):
>> Someone recently made a comment that the GPL will always be an
>> OSD-approved license regardless of what the actual definitions are[0];
>> if true, what does this imply if there exists privileged licenses that
>> are not being evaluated on their merits against the OSD definitions as
>> they are written?
>
> The reason GPLv2[1] will always be OSD-compliant is that it complies
> with the core notions of what open source is.  Those core notions 
> aren't
> likely to change.

You are familiar with the fact that Larry Rosen proposed a change to 
section 6 of the OSD in an attempt to clarify what is meant by 
"discriminatory", correct?   Is it the case that you don't believe that 
any such change possibly might affect "the core notions of open source 
as reflected by the OSD"?

>> Would it be accurate to say that a fair number of people criticised
>> Sean not on the merits of his license vis-a-vis the OSD, but for it
>> being "anti-GPL"?
>
> Might be.  That would be what we call "off-topic chatter", having 
> little
> to do with this list's charter.

Sean Chittenden proposed a license for OSD approval.  The comments I 
referred to were in response to his proprosal, and are also related to 
Larry's proprosed change as mentioned above.  Perhaps you should ask 
Sean whether he thought suggestions that his license should not be 
granted OSD approval due to being "anti GPL" had little do with his 
situation or the charter of this list?

>   Welcome to the Internet.

Thanks, although frankly, I found the Internet to be a more welcoming 
place ten or fifteen years ago.

>> The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns
>> me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over
>> others.
>
> Who, for example?  If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not,
> for example), then they only have opinions like other featherless
> bipeds, and not a direct say in the matter.

Please refer to Ian Lance Taylor's recent message, where he said: "Very 
few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant.  I can 
only recall one.  I argued against the license, but I said right
from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant."

> [0] That would be what we call "petulance".  Welcome to the Internet.

Hmm.  Did what I say above make you feel petulant?

-- 
-Chuck

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3