a proposed change to the OSD

Robert Samuel White webmaster at enetwizard.net
Sat Oct 26 23:45:06 UTC 2002

 >> On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine,
 >> conflict with the following provision in the OSL:
 >>    5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" 
 >>    means the use or distribution of the Original Work or 
 >>    Derivative Works in any way such that the Original
 >>    Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or used by
 >>    anyone other than You,

> I want the terms to be interpreted to mean that private use and
> private modifications may never, under any circumstances, be
> restricted.  I'm fine with the idea that letting other people use code
> you have modified is distribution of a derived work.

I agree with Russ on this one point, and this one point only.  In fact,
I have modified the Simplified Artistic License to include the statement
that packages which are edited for private use by an individual or
company that is not distributed do not need to indicate their changes in
the file.

I do however believe that this "proposed change" needs to be much more
clear on this point.  The way you have it worded now, Russ, you are
basically trying to block any license that wants to maintain some
semblance of artistic control.  That change would invalidate A LOT of
licenses.  And personally, I don't think it's fair.

Also:  To "James E. Harrell, Jr." jharrell at copernicusllc.com:

I understand your feelings.  I have felt the same wrath from this group
that you have, but remember, some of the people here are really great,
and very honorable, like Nathan Kelly, and not all of us feel the same
as Russ and some his cronies.

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list