OSD#5 needs a patch?

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Well, things like this ned a bit of reflecting on; so hope I am not
too late with my comments.

Lawrence E. Rosen said on Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:50:55PM -0700,:

 > Ignore the fact that this combines several of the existing OSD provisions
 > into a different #6. 

I think this  proposal combines two distinct concepts.  OSD#5 is, as I
read it, concerned with quality  of persons using / redistributing the
software.  OSD#6 deals with uses to which the software may be put.

The topic of  rephrasing the OSD came up because  a recent license put
up for approval  did not want software licensed  under that license to
be  used  in  conjunction  with  any software  license  that  requires
disclosure of source code.

I understand '(not) using in conjunction' as not using the software on
a box  running the Linux  Kernel the bash  shell, the ext*  and reiser
filesystems,  initscripts,  system  activity  monitoring  and  logging
software or using the GNU C compiler to compile the sources,

Therefore, I felt that the  license complied with the OSD but defeated
the purpose of having the OSD. Because it defeated the purpose of OSD,
I suggested that license should not be approved. 

May be the  person who submitted the license did  not have such things
in  mind. But, may  be, he  did. Or  may be,  sometime in  the future,
somebody else might submit  another similarly worded license. Now that
we  have been  alerted  to the  possibility  of such  'anti-something'
license, it is time to act.

I suggest that #5 be left as such; we need to take care of #6. 

       The license  must not  restrict anyone from  making use  of the
       program in a  specific field of endeavor.  For  example, it may
       not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
       being used for genetic research.

I suggest that we add

       "A license may not prohibit the software from
       <interacting> with software licensed under
       different terms"

to the end of OSD #6

I am   a   bit   fuzzy   about  the   alternative   for   the   term
interacting. Better suggestions may be considered.

 > battleground on  which political or philosophical  or business wars
 > are waged. 

Is not formation  of the OSI result of a  war against businesses which
are   anti-people?   Business  models   which  are   against  freedom?
Political, philosophical  and economic models which  seek to establish
and perpetuate a legal regime which tends to subjugate governments and
the common people to corporations.

 >  In  many jurisdictions  around  the world,  discrimination on  the
 > basis  of  race,  age,   religion,  national  origin,  sex,  sexual
 > orientation, health  status, and other  personal characteristics is
 > always illegal.   This open source principle is  intended to extend
 > that broad list, not to replace it. 

OSD #5 does that. 

 >    To be consistent with this  open source principle, all terms and
 > conditions of  the license must demonstrably  encourage rather than
 > discourage software freedom for all licensees.

OSD #6 does that. #5 and  #6 are entirely distinct.  Combining the two
will muddle up every thing.
 
-- 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
                                          
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,                   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,               
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,               
  Kerala, India.                          
                                          
  http://in.geocities.com/paivakil         
                                          
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3