<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I can't confirm this on behalf of OSI, as far as I'm aware I'm still
persona non grata in that camp.<br>
<br>
At the time I wrote the OSD, I was ignorant of patent estoppel
issues, and there were no attorneys that would help us.<br>
<br>
I did not write the "rationale" segments, they are supplemental to
the OSD rather than part of it, and they sometimes do not reproduce
the rationale I had in mind when writing the section.<br>
<br>
However, it seems to me that #7 as I wrote it <i>would</i> apply to
any requirement for a separate patent license.<br>
<br>
It does seem that an explicit disclaimer of patent grant, and
abandonment of copyright rather than provision of a license, do not
add up to equitable estoppel regarding patents.<br>
<br>
It doesn't seem to me that this non-license would be as safe for
developers as BSD. I would not be so fast to approve it before
looking at this issue <i>really </i>carefully.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
<br>
On 02/17/2012 03:03 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120217230308.GA5813@redhat.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OK. I would just like the OSI to confirm that this provision of the
Open Source Definition
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
additional license by those parties.
Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by
indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
is not in conflict with the provision of CC0 I quoted. (In which case,
I would be interested in understanding what that plank of the OSD
actually means. Perhaps Mr. Perens can shed some light. <span class="moz-smiley-s1" title=":)"><span>:)</span></span>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>