2008/9/1 Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 30/08/08 23:01, Dave Crossland wrote: > > First up: thanks for these excellent comments Dave.
No probs :-) >>>> 2. Whose source code is: >>>> A. Free/Open Source Software (that is available under a >>>> license in the OSI or FSF approved list >> >> This should be boolean AND instead of OR because the FSF and OSI lists >> diverge slightly; there are some OSI licenses - Artistic License 1.0, >> NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3, Reciprocal Public License - that the >> FSF state are non-free. >> >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > > Sounds reasonable -- plus those don't seem to be major licenses so them > getting excluded isn't really going to make anyone unhappy I would imagine Yes, Fedora confirmed there were 0 programs with these licenses in its licensing audit last year, as there was some efforts to get Fedora on the GNU Project's Recommended GNU/Linux Distributions list. I'm not sure where that is stuck. >>>> B. Made publicly available." >> >> This should be "Made available to its users." >> Requiring publication is highly contentious. > > Having read your links and comments I agree. :-) >> More recently, debian-legal have the desert island/dissident tests [1] >> that, while not as important as the FSF FSD and OSI OSD, are still >> worth thinking about and should not be disregarded lightly. > > Interesting use cases. As you say the change to 'made available to its > users' would address all of these I think. Yes :-) >> My suggestion: >> >> An open software service is one: >> >> 1. Whose data is open as defined by the open knowledge definition >> (http://opendefinition.org/1.0/) with the exception that where the >> data is personal in nature the data need only be made available to the >> user (i.e. the owner of that account). >> 2. Whose source code is Free/Open Source as defined by both the FSF >> and OSI (that is available under a license in the OSI and the FSF >> approved lists) and is available to the users of the service. > > I'm happy with this suggested mod. For the moment it can get wrapped into > the 'development version' and if there is no subsequent objection :) it will > go into v1.1. Thanks! :-) -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
