<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/11/2017 18:51, Bruce Perens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOt2X8XHfUEtrDp4Tzu9vGe2fD9+ydV4BUir08CgnTEksQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John
Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cowan@ccil.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span class="gmail-"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at
11:27 AM, Bruce Perens <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">bruce@perens.com</a>></span>
wrote:</div>
</span>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">In your license, you are asking
for an <b>unrelated</b> program to be made
Open Source due to a condition predicated on a
specific form of use. Besides being clearly
against OSD # 6 (and sorry, OSI is not now
required to announce this obvious fact),</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>
<div>I don't see this. If OSD #6 means, or is
interpreted to mean, "no discrimination against
particular tasks", then I can see it, and that's a
license prohibition I would support. But I have
trouble reading it into the text of #6. Can you
explicate?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is the relevant L0-R text:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i><span style="font-size:16px">5. If you run this
software to analyze, modify, or generate</span><br
style="font-size:16px">
<span style="font-size:16px"> software, you must
release source code for that software.</span></i><br>
</div>
<div><i><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></i></div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px">Analysis, modification,
and generation of software are a field of endeavor under
OSD # 6. </span><span style="font-size:16px">OSD #2 says
the </span><i style="font-size:16px">program </i><span
style="font-size:16px">must include source code, so it
overrides any provision in OSD # 6 that would prevent
the program from having source code. </span><span
style="font-size:16px">But not </span><i
style="font-size:16px">other </i><span
style="font-size:16px">programs. So, GPL OK, King Midas
not OK.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px">We strengthen this with
OSD # 9 requiring that the license not bind to other
software that is simply distributed with the Open
Source. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
Il love this King Midas analogy. It is quite graphic and I could not
agree more with Bruce. The provision Bruce has extracted is not an
acceptable one in open source. I have already stated my case, many
others have, I stand firm in my belief. I am shocked we are still
arguing something that should have been long settled by now.<br>
<br>
Our world has fought long battles against the characterization of
copyleft as "viral", which in turn is intended in the pejorative
"infectious", a frivolous yet still today damaging concept that
detracts many from using copyleft software. A license containing
such language would be indeed flat out infectious, the legal
equivalent of a virus. The fact that this would also be legally
sound, just worsens the situation. Let's imagine a Patrick McHardy
using that clause. You must be kidding me.<br>
<br>
Sorry for the additional noise.<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>