Proposal for change to OSD#9
chris.travers at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 15:53:01 UTC 2007
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 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
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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss