compatibility and the OSD

Bob Scheifler Bob.Scheifler at Sun.COM
Thu Sep 23 16:36:21 UTC 2004

> OSD#3 says "The license must allow modifications and derived works."
> It doesn't say "The license must allow some modifications and derived
> works."  Neither does it say "The license must allow all modifications
> and derived works."  We, however, behave as if it says the latter, not
> the former.  Any reason why we shouldn't?

One more question from me, and then I'm done. Back in June,
I asked if the word "restrict" in OSD#6 should be interpreted narrowly
to mean "completely preclude". Meaning, it's (definitionally) acceptable
for the license to impose arbitrarily onerous terms on just a single field
of endeavor. You answered in the affirmative. I took a logical consequence
of that to be that such restrictions could, directly or indirectly, result
in non-trivial restrictions on what derivative works could be distributed.
The meaning of OSD#3 that's being given, as I understand it, is that
the license must allow distribution of (almost) all derivative works.
Can you help me understand how those two seemingly conflicting statements
are reconciled?

- Bob

More information about the License-discuss mailing list