OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

[Russell Nelson]

Bob Scheifler writes:
 > So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale)
 > should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning,
 > there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing;
 > it's (definitionally) acceptable for the license to impose arbitrarily
 > onerous terms on just a single field of endeavor (for example, all
 > commercial use, or all genetic research), so long as use in that field of
 > endeavor is not completely precluded? (Not trying to dispute, just trying
 > to understand.)

Yes.  This is a trivially approvable open source license:
  If you're Bob Scheifler, you have to comply with the GPL.
  Everyone else need only comply with the MIT license.
Everybody gets to distribute the software under terms that fall under
the Open Source Definition.

 > Not knowing how this list works, are there people who speak
 > authoritatively on interpretations of the OSD?

This list is the license-discuss committee.  In a sense, everyone here
speaks authoritatively.  I'm the chairman, and I write up the
consensus of the list for the OSI board.

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | The USA has turned into a
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | people that are afraid of
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | FWD# 404529 via VOIP  | for nothing.  -- GF
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3