>"Matthew C. Weigel" <weigel+@pitt.edu>
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 email@greglondon.com wrote:
>
>> > You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it?  ;-)
>> a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor.
>
>That's right.  Dismissive of the attitude that the software itself
>should not provide adequate documentation.  You've apparently written a
>book on Perl, so why not roll this document of yours into the Perl
>distribution?  

Because there is currently no OSI approved license 
that says "copy/distribute/no-modify".
yet the defition appears to support one.

>> > How would that be open source, if people can't modify it?  More
>> > specifically, why would the OSI or the FSF care about it, if it's
>> > contrary to their goals?
>>
>> I find it interesting, almost like I've stepped into a world of
>> group-self-deception, bordering on hypocricy, that GPL <<as a
>> document>> is licensed as "copy/distribute/no-modify". But every
>> response (so far at least) to a request for a license that codifies
>> "copy/distribute/no-modify" has dismissed the request.
>
>Great, someone else who's going to save open source from the people who
>understand it.  Why are people so enchanted with the name "open source"
>that they want to attach it to whatever they do?

misdirection and drama. I'm not out to save anyone.

My original email stated that I'm looking for a
license based on the OSI definition prohibiting
item #3 (derived works) by allowing #4 (patches).

I'm not breaking the definition of Open Source.
there simply isn't a license currently approved
that does what I'm looking for. But my request
was within OSI's own definition.

If I am misunderstanding item #4 in the Definition,
then perhaps there is no way to do what I want
to do with an OSI approvable license.

if so, I'll move on.

>First, I dismissed the relevance of your request - but I still provided
>some helpful suggestions.  What you need isn't open source, deal with
>it.

again, my original request said I'm looking
for a license that prohibited #3 by allowing #4.
But I was referencing OSI's own open-source definition.

it was a relavent question. no need for flames.

>> The responses so far regarding a copy/distribute/no-modify
>> license have said that such a license would:

>> 2) not further OSI's commitment to open-source
>That's right.  Most of us also agree that translating all software
>documentation into Latin doesn't further the OSI's commitment to open
>source.

beligerent. 

I believe I'm well within the current
definition of open source that my request is not 
so outlandish.

>> 3) have no value to the rest of the world
>It might have value.  I still get people who think that the Newbie
>Guide is useful (except for this little thing, would you mind changing
>it?).

sarcasm. see above.

>> 4) would condemn it's document to instant out-of-dateness.
>Not instant.  But it would be condemned.  It is the official stance of
>the OSI that restricting yourself to a single vendor for a product
>through things such as no-modify clauses leads to undue reliance on the
>health and interest of that vendor (in this case, you).

Then I have misunderstood item #4 in the
open-source definition.

: 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
: The license may restrict source-code from being 
: distributed in modified form only if the license 
: allows the distribution of "patch files" with 
: the source code for the purpose of modifying 
: the program at build time. 

Unless, of course, you're waving your fists in the air 
about something that isn't part of the Open Source 
Initiative's commitment. Are you speaking for OSI, 
or for yourself? 

Are you speaking your own agenda here rather than OSI's?
If so, I'll politely ignore you henceforth.

>> Yet, the GPL license, as a document itself,
>> licensed as "copy/distribute/no-modify", is:
>
>What can I say here but you're being obtuse?  
>Here's an interesting point: the GPL ain't software.

I was attempting to be very explicit.
I understand the GPL isn't software.
and I noticed the GPL isn't licensed 
under a software style license.
it's licensed under a document style license.

>Do some thinking and you'll agree.  Here's a first step: how does one
>preserve the right to modify the software in the license, if the
>license itself can change?

yes, being able to modify the license would be bad.
So GPL is licensed under a 'copy/distribute/no-modify' license.

yes, there are times where it makes sense to license
a piece of text as 'no-modify'. yes, exactly.
yes, that's exactly the kind of license I'm looking for.

>> I'm telling you that Open-Source ALREADY embraces both,
>> since GPL is licensed under GDL. It's not a big deal.
>
>Get a clue.  The GPL is not documentation, any more than it is
>software. No one ever argued that the GPL is free software.

its not software, and its not a document? 
you cannot put the GPL license in some <meta>-world
where the rules do not apply.  The GPL is a document
that is copyrighted by FSF and licensed under a 
"copy/distribute/no-modify" license. It does not
merit special protection from the rest of the world.

>> It's good enough for GPL to use the GDL, so it's good enough for me.
>What a maroon.

ah, name-calling, a new low.
I must ask if you're representing OSI, 
or are these your own opinions?

OSI's home page starts out with this commitment:
:Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to
:managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the
:community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software
:certification mark and program. 

and name-calling, beligerency, sarcasm, and a liberal
dose of a napalm-coated-flame would be in line with 
OSI's commitment to "the good of the community"???
I am at a loss.

Throwing your fists in the air, screaming and shouting,
will bring no good will to the Open Source movement 
for those uninitiated in OSI. If you're truly committed to 
the good of the community, then you have failed.

>What you need is not open source.  What you need is "(C) Greg London.
>The right to distribute copies of this work including this copyright
>notice, whole and without modification, is granted provided no fee is
>charged.  No other rights are granted."

perhaps that is the approach I will use, I don't know.
Someone sent me this link off the list:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents-19990405
and I might take a look at that as well.

My guess is they sent it off list because they were afraid
of getting similarly flamed by you. if so, you're censoring
the list with beligerency. this is not 'good of the community'.

>What you want is to be able to attach the OSI service mark to your
>document.  People in Hell want icewater.

Aaahhh, I think I see what might be part of the issue.

I don't want to hijack the OSI mark.
I do not expect it to be of any value to me as far
as any kind of "branding" is concerned.
"oooh, his document is OSI certified..."
I doubt that sentence will ever be uttered.

OSI has built something that is an attempt to
universally define what is and is not open-source.
I respect and admire that. Nor do I want to take
anything away from that.

I'm not looking for OSI to bend the rules for me,
just so I can license my document the way I want 
to license it, and have the OSI mark on the front 
cover. If the license I want cannot be worded in
a way that is OSI compliant, then I'll move on.
Maybe I'll use the W3 license or something else.

The only reason I started this thread was because
I spent some time reading OSI's definition of 
open-source, thought it fit what I wanted to do,
but then could not find any license that actually
implemented what I wanted.

If my request does not fit the OSI definition,
then I believe this list might save itself a 
flame war or two in the future if it clarified
its mission statement and open-source definition.

i.e. OSI deals only with software licenses. 
OSI does not deal with documentation licences,
even if related to software content.
(a pointer offsite would be a friendly hint to go away.)
And item 4 of the definition may nearly as well
be removed. Or clarified that it really isn't
in teh spirit of open source.

I'm not trying to pull a fast one and 
steal OSI's mark for my document.
if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go 
find a fire extinguisher now.

Greg 



