Proposal for change to OSD#9

[Chris Travers]

On 8/26/07, Nils Labugt <elabu at online.no> wrote:
>
> OSD#9 does not define "other software". OSI should promote
> interoperability and competition, but the lack of clarity of #9 makes it
> less effective for that purpose.


I agree.

I therefore propose that #9 be amended
> with the following definition:
>
> A piece of software would count as "other software" if works of similar
> nature are customarily distributed by vendors as separate products to
> new customers, and the software is not a derivative work, as understood
> in the _______ jurisdiction, of the work covered by the license.



hmmm....  The only concern I have is in the jurisdiction clause.  I guess
that you have some concern there too, hence the blank.  I don't see a good
answer.

My own suggestion would be to drop the "as understood in...." and leave it
as "not a derivative work."

I would also suggest that the license could require (as does the GPL v2)
that source code for dependencies be available, but could not specify a
license for mere dependencies (obviously, a dependency is not a derivative
work of someone who later uses that dependency!  I doubt you will even get
any argument to that effect from the FSF folks).

>
>
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070826/a2280d7a/attachment.html>