For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License

[David Presotto]

On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, sean at chittenden.org wrote:
> > As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has
> > said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed
> > under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed
> > under this license.''  Then Sean would always have access to changed
> > code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them.
> > Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the
> > archive.
> 
> Inflammatory to who?  To GPL users?  Look at the reaction that
> Microsoft has to the GPL?  Heck, I'm inclined to agree with some of
> their critiques of the GPL.  Look at my reaction to the GPL: the
> OSSAL.  At least I'm here asking for review and critiques from some
> people in the "open source" community.
> 
> I thought about changing the words in the OSSAL to read as follows:
> 
> <frag>
> 3. Redistributions of source code and contributions (i.e. patches) to
>    source code may be licensed under more than one license and must
>    not have the terms of the OSSAL removed.  If there are conflicting
>    terms between one or more licenses and the OSSAL, the terms in the
>    conflicting license must defer to the corresponding terms in the
>    OSSAL or the terms of the conflicting license are waived.
> 4. If redistributions of source code, in either a textual or
>    non-textual form and any contributions made to source code, in
>    either a textual or non-textual form, are distributed under an
>    inheritive license, source code and its contributions must also be
>    distributed under the terms of the OSSAL.
> 5. Redistributions of source code in either a textual or non-textual
>    form must not exclusively depend on software that requires
>    disclosure of source code unless an acceptable, usable, and
>    non-commercially available alternative exists in the market place.
> </frag>

Infammatory to me, just as the GPL is; I don't like restrictions.  I'm
equally bothered by the indemnity clause that appears in my LPL license.
However, just because I don't really want to use either the GPL or OSSAL,
I would still call them equally open source.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3