Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part: > It doesn't even seem close to me. Let me know if I'm insane, or reading > it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open > source. > > I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there > because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3), > unlike the license under discussion. > > Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would > be non-open-source. >
I agree with you. I have difficulty understanding 2d. It seems complicated. In private email, Christophe Dupre summarized the intention this way: > 2 d is there to make sure that the library remains usefull by itself, and > does not become a wrapper for proprietary tools. I don't know if 2 d meets that intention or not. It is hard to understand 2d. But I have my doubts that the intention is compatible with Open Source, (depending on how we define "Proprietary") -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3