License Committee Report for September 2008

[Russ Nelson]

Wang Donglin writes:
 > Do you suggest that try to make UOML famous first, and begin to open source
 > secondly? Then the industry has to get the open source code after several
 > years, instead of right now. Obviously, your suggestion will reduce the open
 > source software.

That's okay.  You can still give away your code with source under a
license that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition.

 > >You can use the Artistic License, which requires that you rename the
 > software if you modify it.
 > Same problem as trademark.

No.  With a trademark, you must sue them for trademark violation.
With the Artistic License, if they modify the software, and don't
rename it, you can sue them for copyright violation.

If you don't care why you're suing somebody, or what effects it has on
their distribution of the software, then you need to reconsider
everything.

 > >You can license under the BSD license if the distributed software complies
 > with the UOML test suite, and under the GPL otherwise.
 > Does it comply with Open Source Definition 6 and 10? It seems not
 > technology-neutral.

Any license of the form "if you do X then you must follow the terms of
OSI-approved license Y, otherwise you must follow the terms of
OSI-approved license Z" CLEARLY complies with the Open Source
Definition.

 > >You can have a web page which lists all software that implements UOML
 > correctly, and which lists all software that claims to implement UOML but
 > which doesn't pass the test suite.
 > Same problem as trademark.

No, with the trademark, you are relying on trademark law to protect
you.  With this solution, you don't need any law at all.  You list who
you want to list, and you decry anybody who needs to be decried.

If people don't visit your website, and if nobody cares about UOML,
then you're screwed and Open Source can't rescue you.

 > 1. What is goal of open source? 

To increase the body of code which is reusable by all for anything.

 > 2. Does our endeavor help or against the goal?

It does not help.  You're trying to keep something constant, and Open
Source is predicated on changability.  You're trying to keep control
over something that Open Source does not let you control.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | Delegislation is a slippery
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | slope to prosperity.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | Fewer laws, more freedom.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | (Not a GOP supporter).