For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
sean at chittenden.org
Mon Sep 29 23:17:00 UTC 2003
'tips hat to a BSDer and [snips]
> Just to make sure things are clear: I don't think anyone on this
> list would argue that OSI should be"only permitting licenses that
> GPL compatible". In fact, the OSI has approved numerous licenses
> that are GPL-incompatible. Further, any of us come from the BSD
> tradition and have our own issues with the GPL, though we try to
> respect and understand their 'business model'.
*chuckles at business model*
> Also, you should realize that while the OSI board makes decisions
> that are -informed by- this dialogue, but since this group doesn't
> speak with a coherent voice they aren't required to follow us in any
> formal way. In fact, I think I've noticed several distinct
> criticisms of your license, which its important not to confuse:
*nods* Let me run through this excellent as a way to hopefully pair
down the threads that are worth engaging in:
> A. It is morally wrong to create a license incompatible with the
*nods* I don't think this will be resolved by anything anyone says and
is a difference of ideological opinions (which everyone is entitled
to and is a good thing(TM)).
> B. It is pointless to create such a license, since you're solving a
> non-existing problem.
Subject to debate, decided by the author and influenced by the
decision reached by the OSI board and members of this list.
> C. As a practical matter, it is a bad idea to openly criticize the
:-/ Agreed, I'm sure I didn't win any points in doing so.
> D. The license as written doesn't accomplish your stated goal,
> regardless of whether or not that goal as valid
Short of a signed contract, fully accomplishing that goal is
impossible, but it doesn't prevent the goal from being stated as a
guiding light/statement of philosophy for the community.
> E. There's other licenses (like the EU DataGrid) which accomplish
> your purposes just as effectively, and we should avoid needless
> duplication, so please use that instead.
Yeah, I read this license and liked it with the exception of one
point: contributions to EUDGL software can be hopelessly
interdependent on GPL bits, which I'm not wild about.
> Enough meta-rambling; back to the debate...
Whoa! Wait a sec, you mean code talks and there's more to software
than its license? :) -sc
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss