It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review the OSD. I may be presenting a proposal to larry soon to help them in that effort. Even so, I think the lawyers could benefit from the input of the developers. I would not abandon the project.
Rod ----Original Message----- >From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: >Bcc: >Subj: Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)) >Type: IPM.Note >Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:55 AM > >Karsten M. Self writes: > > Proposed language: > > > > 2. Source Code > > > > The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as > > compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with > > source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the > > source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- > > preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access > > restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred > > form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately > > obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as > > the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. For > > licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD > > Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the > > software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of > > source as described in this paragraph. > >Good. Close. Better than my previous attempt. What do you think >of this: > > 2. Source Code > > The license applies to source code. A compiled executable is > considered a derived work. Such an executable is only open source > if its source code is also open source. When a compiled > executable is not distributed with source code, there must be a > well publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more > than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via > the Internet without charge or access restrictions. The source > code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a > programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated > source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as the > output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. > >Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal >requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast >into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done >by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to >dilettantes like you and I. > >-- >-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com >Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act >521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: >Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3