Proposal for change to OSD#9

Nils Labugt elabu at
Sun Aug 26 21:12:43 UTC 2007

søn, 26.08.2007 kl. 14.34 -0400, skrev Josef Assad:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:39:13 -0700
> Rick Moen <rick at> wrote:
> > Quoting Nils Labugt (elabu at
> > 
> > > OSD#9 does not define "other software". 
> > 
> > I don't see that as a problem.  Never before recently have I seen
> > anyone find a way to understand that provision's meaning, and one
> > suspects in the recent case that the lack of comprehension was
> > somewhat willful.
> A certain claim that a browser was integral to the OS comes to mind...
> I agree that pinning down what "other software" means is problematic.
> I'd be curious to know what specific scenarios you had in mind to
> cover
> though, Nils.

System libraries that comes with a license that only permits (dynamic)
linking with software under the same license, could be one example.

Interfaces (and file formats) under the control of a single vendor
hampers competition trough vendor lock-in and network effects. Open
source and open standards makes these interfaces accessible to everyone
without restrictions, thereby allowing competition, interoperability and
freedom of choice for both developers and end users. I see this as the
most important benefit of open source. Licenses that puts restrictions
on software on the other side of the interface are a step in the wrong
direction, and they do not deserve to be called open source licenses.

Nils Labugt

More information about the License-discuss mailing list