Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Rod Dixon scripsit:

> I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
> opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
> has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
> within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
> Y is not authorized to use the mark, vendor Y must follow that
> determination or risk infringing the mark. 

Doubtless, but it's not clear whether the title of a license is an essential part
of the license.  If I take an OSI-certified license and change just the title,
is the resulting license still OSI-certified?

-- 
"May the hair on your toes never fall out!"     John Cowan
        --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo)         jcowan at reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3