[License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:11 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

>
> > Have a look at the definition of "External Deployment" in
> > OSL 3.0, for example.
>
> Huh, interesting.  Was that specific provision discussed at the time?
> Bruce?  Simon?
>

I don't think I participated in review of that license.  However, I've
always questioned RMS's devotion to the concept that private development
must not trigger the license's terms. There is nothing like that in the
OSD, nor was there any intent that there be such terms. I don't believe
that RMS was even on this horse at the time of the creation of the OSD, it
came up later.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181024/00730711/attachment.html>