For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
presotto at closedmind.org
Tue Sep 30 00:41:47 UTC 2003
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:
> 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.
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
More information about the License-discuss