david_dillard at symantec.com
Tue Sep 6 20:52:54 UTC 2005
When people talk about "free software" that's the definition they're
using - whether you feel it's foolish or not.
You might find this useful:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Seth Flaschen [mailto:superm40 at comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:47 PM
> To: Chris Zumbrunn; David Ryan
> Cc: Ben Tilly; Russell Nelson; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: License Proliferation
> Only software in the public domain has no restrictions. All
> licenses do. Therefore, your definition of "free" is foolish.
> -Matt Flaschen
> > First, just to save bandwidth and avoid responding with similar
> > wording to several message:
> > When I used the term "free" I meant the orwellian freedom...
> > "free" == "Freedom as defined by RMS" == copy-left
> > I thought on this mailing list this would not create confusion.
> > Obviously I was wrong.
> > When I used the term "open" I meant "Freedom as defined by
> the rest of
> > us; you know, the absence of restrictions on activity", as
> Russell put
> > it.
> > On Sep 5, 2005, at 9:43 AM, David Ryan wrote:
> > > This discussion I believe started because of discussions
> of whether
> > > a license should be approved based on its compatibility
> with other
> > > licenses. You will never be able to place code from any strong
> > > copy-left license into BSD software. I think compatibility with
> > > other licenses in its class would be helpful and encouraged.
> > > However, some ideals may never allow compatibility.
> > Sublicense != Relicense
> > Only the copyright holder can relicense code under a
> different license.
> > If you include code that you received under a BSD license in your
> > larger work that you license to me under a proprietary
> license, then
> > the code you included is strictly speaking sublicensed by you to me
> > and is still BSD. You can only sublicense, not relicense. I
> could take
> > that code and do with it whatever the BSD allows. The fact that you
> > most likely will not be providing me with the source code,
> since it is
> > part of your proprietary larger work, is just a technicality.
> > Basically, what I was arguing is that the OSD could be
> amended with a
> > clause that prohibits licenses to dictate the license of
> larger works.
> > > There seems to be two camps growing on the list. The
> Darwinian camp
> > > who believe that aslong as a license is conformant then
> let it out
> > > in the wild and fend for itself. If it is successful then more
> > > people will use it, may even improve it. If the license is not
> > > succesful it will be limp off into a corner of the
> internet and die.
> > Yes, but even the Darwinists need to ask themselves what
> exactly the
> > licenses need to conform to. The OSD, of course, but that
> can be seen
> > as a moving target.
> > > The other camp believe that the OSI have a strong duty to
> uphold a
> > > higher standard and make it easier for businesses and
> individuals to
> > > understand open source licenses. This should be achieved
> by raising
> > > the bar of what needs to be achieved to get a license approved.
> > I believe even the Darwinists can agree with this, depending on
> > exactly how the bar is raised. After all, they seem to have
> agreed to
> > put it where it is now.
> > > My preference is the Darwinian one. The biggest deciding factor
> > > behind this is that as a developer I believe it is my choice to
> > > decide how I will release my software. Making my software open
> > > source is one of a number of options. I can choose to
> keep it on my
> > > PC and not share it at all, I can choose to create a commercial
> > > business and sell the software as closed source, or I can
> choose to
> > > make my software available with source code. If I make
> it available
> > > with source code, there are plenty of both OSI approved and
> > > non-approved licenses to choose from. In the end it is
> my choice.
> > > [...]
> > Exactly, just because you pick a license that is not OSI approved,
> > does not mean it is not open source. It might just never have been
> > submitted for approval or/and it might disagree with the OSD
> > definition of open source. So far the OSI has tried to prevent the
> > latter from happening by keeping the OSD synonymously with "open
> > source". In fact, that seems to have been a major goal of
> OSI so far.
> > > One of the common arguments for the other camp is that
> companies are
> > > going to throw their hands up and say enough. Please,
> let them do it.
> > > The solution will likely be that only a select number of
> > > will be chosen by them. If my software license doesn't
> conform then
> > > I need to choose if I want to change it to meet their select
> > > license, or just as possible, decide I don't mind that they won't
> > > accept the software. Each business are also likely to have
> > > different requirements for their license approval. I
> think the OSI
> > > performing that function is premature and unlikely to
> meet everyones goals.
> > True, but another argument by "the other camp" is that easing code
> > reuse should be a goal of the OSI and that this is the true
> > for license tiering and non-proliferation efforts. I'm
> saying, if that
> > shall be true then the OSI needs to amend the OSD
> accordingly and move
> > the GPL to the second tier of licenses that no longer meet
> the new OSD.
> > Chris
More information about the License-discuss