Approval of IWL - Consolidated Response

[Matthew Flaschen]

Gernot Heiser wrote:
> So it's down to an alleged violation of OSD #9. We have asked for that
> to be clarified, but I haven't seen anyone clearly enunciate how the
> IWL violates OSD #9.

Actually, I did earlier, but I will again since you're not saying /how/ 
that earlier explanation was unclear.

OSD #9 says:

"9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is 
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license 
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium 
must be open-source software. "

IWL says:

"(c) Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on 
how to obtain complete source code for:

         (i) the Software; and
         (ii) all accompanying software that uses (or is intended to 
use) the Software whether directly or indirectly."

Point (i) is of course fine, and the same as many other licenses.

Point (ii) violates OSD #9.  "Use" is not defined, and thus needs to be 
interpreted broadly.  It is likely that independently written works 
(like a new client) distributed with derivative works (such as a server) 
would either directly or indirectly use the Software.  This conflicts 
with OSD #9, which says "other [non-derivative] software" can not have 
"restrictions".

Matt Flaschen