License Committee Report for September 2008
alexwang at sursen.com
Tue Nov 4 16:57:38 UTC 2008
What I mentioned "Same problem as trademark" is that we must make UOML
famous first and begin to open source after several years. i.e. the first
question of last mail. If UOML is not famous enough, rename is not enough to
realize interoperation, and end user will not check the website.
If current Open Source Definition prevent endeavors for interoperability, it
is time to update it.
P.S. Is GPL code is reusable by all for non-free software or close-source
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Wang Donglin
Cc: license-review at opensource.org; 'liumingjuan'
Subject: RE: License Committee Report for September 2008
Wang Donglin writes:
> Do you suggest that try to make UOML famous first, and begin to open
source > secondly? Then the industry has to get the open source code after
several > years, instead of right now. Obviously, your suggestion will
reduce the open > source software.
That's okay. You can still give away your code with source under a license
that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition.
> >You can use the Artistic License, which requires that you rename the >
software if you modify it.
> Same problem as trademark.
No. With a trademark, you must sue them for trademark violation.
With the Artistic License, if they modify the software, and don't rename it,
you can sue them for copyright violation.
If you don't care why you're suing somebody, or what effects it has on their
distribution of the software, then you need to reconsider everything.
> >You can license under the BSD license if the distributed software
complies > with the UOML test suite, and under the GPL otherwise.
> Does it comply with Open Source Definition 6 and 10? It seems not >
Any license of the form "if you do X then you must follow the terms of
OSI-approved license Y, otherwise you must follow the terms of OSI-approved
license Z" CLEARLY complies with the Open Source Definition.
> >You can have a web page which lists all software that implements UOML >
correctly, and which lists all software that claims to implement UOML but >
which doesn't pass the test suite.
> Same problem as trademark.
No, with the trademark, you are relying on trademark law to protect you.
With this solution, you don't need any law at all. You list who you want to
list, and you decry anybody who needs to be decried.
If people don't visit your website, and if nobody cares about UOML, then
you're screwed and Open Source can't rescue you.
> 1. What is goal of open source?
To increase the body of code which is reusable by all for anything.
> 2. Does our endeavor help or against the goal?
It does not help. You're trying to keep something constant, and Open Source
is predicated on changability. You're trying to keep control over something
that Open Source does not let you control.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter).
More information about the License-review