Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Oh, it's *always* had to be changed. Anybody could insert > restrictions on use into a license and ask us to approve it. Since > the OSD says nothing about a license not being allowed to have > restrictions on use, we would have to approve the license.
Or they'll turn you into a newt? Russ, on other occasions, I believe you've been among those reminding people that the OSD isn't a black-box algorithm into which you plug candidate licences to determine whether they pass or fail. Whether I recall correctly or not, those were words of wisdom. I would expect that, if someone proposed a licence that satisfied OSD formalisms but denied rights to software usage, the Board's reaction would be "Nice try." And its reaction to allegations that it "has to" approve such a licence would be "No." Doesn't that solve the problem? There will probably always be clever licence provisions to attempt subversion of the OSD's intent, no matter how many of them get patched. It would save a lot of time and energy to fall back on the rule of reason -- and the right of usage is obviously necessary to and implied by the existing OSD terms. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3