mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Tue Sep 27 02:03:00 UTC 2005
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:53:18AM +1000, Chris Yoo wrote:
> IMHO, to create a precedent that would see such a model as 'non open source'
> would be an unfortunate development, particularly in light of the growing
> interest in open source by closed source software players.
While I tend to be happy with licenses of this sort (section 3b of the
QPL is fairly similar), this argument isn't very compelling. While it's
desirable for more people to produce open source software, this
shouldn't be due to us redefining "open source" in a way that reduces
the rights we expect people to have. If Microsoft offered us the
entirity of the sourcecode to Windows under a license that was almost
OSD compliant, that shouldn't cause us to rewrite the OSD just so we
could have more open source code.
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
More information about the License-discuss