Ah, several items just fell into place.
1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL)
are totally independent.
2) Some of the OSI AL's also happen to meet
the OSD definition, and some do not.
But OSI does not determine this.
3) OSI approved it's licenses not because
of how they measured against the OSD,
but because they were simply the most common,
or someone requested it.
4) OSI certification requires that you
A) license your software with an OSI approved license
B) distribute your software in a manner that
comlies with the OSD.
5) OSI certification does not mean your
license meets the OSD, but that your
software distribution meets the OSD.
6) You can use an OSI approved license and
not be OSI certified.
See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion.
I thought the OSD was somehow related to
the approved OSI licenses.
Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses
simply because they were the most common.
The OSD is independent of the licenses.
Getting software off the net that uses an
OSI aproved license does not mean that
software is open source, in the OSD sense
of the term.
Rather, if you want to know if some software
off the net meets the definition of open source,
it must be OSI certified.
So, to put it in a nice little blurb
that could go somewhere on the OSI web page:
(probably the approved licenses page)
"Just because a license is approved
does not mean the license enforces the OSD.
However, to get OSI certified, a program
must be licensed under an OSI approved license.
If an OSI certified program is re-distributed
in manner that does not meet the OSD,
OSI's only recourse is to revoke certification.
Not all OSI approved licences require that
re-distributions meet the OSD. Choose your
license carefully."
Greg
--
Greg London
x7541
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
