compatibility and the OSD

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

In my opinion, I do not see an OSD problem with either of the proposals
posted below by Ernie.

Rod


__________

Rod Dixon

My Blog is 

http://opensource.cyberspaces.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:prabhaka at apple.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:42 PM
To: Bob.Scheifler at Sun.COM
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: compatibility and the OSD

Hmm, just saw Rod's comments, so I'm rethinking my affirmation.   The 
real issue seems to be:

On Sep 20, 2004, at 4:24 PM, Bob Scheifler wrote:
>    c. Any other Derivative Work can only be distributed under this 
> License
>       as the combination of Source Code, unmodified Test Suite, and
>       unmodified Test Suite Documentation.

I believe this is morally equivalent to:

    a. Any Derivative Work can only be distributed under this License
       as the combination of Source Code, unmodified Test Suite, and
       unmodified Test Suite Documentation.

Would this be acceptable? It seems to imply you can't make 
non-compatible binary distributions.

Also, I'm not sure if requirements of delivering additional components 
is a improper restriction on redistribution.  What if it simply said 
the following.

a.  You must also include the original, unmodified Code and Related 
Materials along with any distribution of the Derived Works in either 
source or binary form, all of which must be under the terms of this 
License.

Is that more burdensome than the GPL requirement, since the GPL gives 
you the option to provide a written offer instead?

That is, I suggest we first focus on a hypothetical license which only 
allows Derived Works under this restriction, then treat your 
conditional as a relaxation as that.

-- Ernie P.
IANAL, IANAAL, TINLA, etc.