License Committee Report for September 2008

[Wang Donglin]

Hi Russ,

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.

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

>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.

>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.

As you described, the open source club is a private club, someone make a
rule, and only persons who obey the rule are able to join in. No one can
challenge the rule, even though some terms of the rule will prevent the club
to reach its goal. Okay, that's your right, but please, rename your club,
don't use "open source" to mislead public.

To Bruce:

> If we encouraged everybody who had a problem with the rules to call their
software "Open Source", then "Open Source" would not mean anything.
Sure, "Open Source" need a definition. The topic is what should be called
open source, what shouldn't. The answer is based on:
1. What is goal of open source? 
2. Does our endeavor help or against the goal?
If something is in favor of the goal, but forbidden by the rule, we should
update the rule. 

> it is wrong to prohibit extensions because that places a barrier in the
way of progress
We encourage extensions, the only requirement is UOML conformance. This
requirement is not a barrier in the way of progress.

-Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:47 AM
To: Wang Donglin
Cc: 'allison shi'; license-review at opensource.org; 'liumingjuan'
Subject: RE: License Committee Report for September 2008

Wang Donglin writes:
 > Unfortunately, your suggestion can not wok. It requires that the
trademark  > has become a famous brand and the end users only use the
software with this  > brand, therefore the modified version provider need
this brand. But UOML is  > not in this case.

It is impossible to get to the top of Everest, because in order to get to
the top of Everest, you must be one step short of the top of Everest.  Since
it's impossible to get to the top of Everest, it's practically impossible to
get one step short of the top of Everest.
Since it's practically impossible to get one step short, one may as well not
try.

If you project failure, then you WILL fail.

 > Is there any other option?

Yes, there are several options.

You can use the Artistic License, which requires that you rename the
software if you modify it.

You can license under the BSD license if the distributed software complies
with the UOML test suite, and under the GPL otherwise.

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.

 > Do you know this kind of rule(Open Source Definition) will prevent  >
potential contributer like us to participate the open source  > community?

That's okay.  We'll still love you anyway.

In my religion (Quakerism) you are expect to adhere to a certain code of
conduct.  If you do, you may apply for membership.  If you have gotten it,
and misbehave, you may be read out of the meeting.  You can still attend
meeting, but you are no longer a member of the meeting.

So it is with Open Source.  We have rules here.

-- 
--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).