Proposal for change to OSD#9
chris.travers at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 19:26:45 UTC 2007
On 8/26/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Understanding OSD#9 doesn't hinge on disambiguating OSes from browsers,
> and has no connection to monopolists' packaging dodges.
No, but its application tothe GPL3 revolves around remarkably simialr issues
> I agree that pinning down what "other software" means is problematic.
> "Pinning down" is simply not required. The plain language of OSD#9
> draws a distinction between what software is licensed and all other
> software, e.g., software that is merely on the same media as the covered
> software but not encumbered by the covered software's copyright.
I think the meaning of "For example, the license must not insist that all
other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software."
is pretty clear. The OSD #9 is not intended to be limited to one example.
Determining what other software is encumbered by a particular codebase
> within your jurisdiction, e.g, is part of the referenced software or a
> derivative work of it, is a matter you either already know (because you
> possess some common sense and were paying attention) or, if you lack
> common sense, are free to determine using the services of attorneys and
> judges, if you'd prefer.
Agreed about the jurisdiction issue. How is the OSI to evaluate this? Are
we to start requiring legal input on a jurisdictional level? THat seems to
me to be at best counterproductive, and at worst discriminatory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss