[License-discuss] Is what's made with Open Source, Open Source?

[cowan at ccil.org]

Maximilian scripsit:

> Regarding point one, the GPLv3 doesn't allow for this. If it did, for
> example, documents made with LibreOffice would themselves be licensed
> under the GPLv3. Technically I think it would be possible for such a
> licence to still be compatible with the Open Source Definition, although
> I can't name a licence like that off the top of my head.

I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license
as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make
it not Open Source.

> With respect to point two, you'd need to show that the apps built using
> Rapid are actually derived works. From the viewpoint of the Free
> Software Foundation, they would probably see that as the apps are
> completely dependent on Rapid, perhaps moreso than a software library,
> the apps would therefore form "derivative works" and be licensed under
> the GPL.

Almost certainly not.  Before open-source Java systems existed, the
FSF discouraged people from writing free Java apps, but didn't deny
that an app released under a free license was free.  See
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html>; there is no longer
a Java trap, of course.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, it has been said, then
you are on a well-traveled road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are
absolutely sure you are in hell, however, then you must be on the Cross
Bronx Expressway.  --Alan Feuer, New York Times, 2002-09-20