Free World Licence and clauses 5,6,8 & 9 of OSS definition.

Ross N. Williams ross at
Tue Oct 19 04:07:13 UTC 1999

At 8:49 PM -0700 18/10/99, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Ross N. Williams wrote:
>> >> The FWL does not discriminate in relation to a PARTICULAR
>> >> software distribution. Instead, it discriminates in relation
>> >> to a CLASS of distributions - the free ones.
>> >If it means what you say it means, what's to prevent someone from defining a
>> >class consisting of "Windows 95 and all successor operating systems"?
>> But your example is a class defined by an identity, not a property.
>I'm not sure what you mean by an identity.  If you mean that it defines its
>class only by listing all its members, then no, it doesn't.  It doesn't even
>mention Windows 98, yet Windows 98 would be included in it.
>And honestly, if _you_ saw the phrase "particular", would you really think it
>meant "being a member of a class defined by an identity, but not a class
>defined by a property"?  That's just too long and convoluted a definition to
>have plausibly been intended all along.

Hey - ultimately it's up to you guys. I'm just trying to argue
my case. I'm happy to give in.


Dr Ross N. Williams (ross at, +61 8 8232-6262 (fax-6264).
Director, Rocksoft Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia: 
Protect your files with Veracity data integrity:

More information about the License-discuss mailing list