What wording here would need to change? For example: 2.2.5 Source > > The license may require modified works to be made available in a form > preferred for further modification. >
Change to: The license may require works to be made available in a form preferred for > further modification. > I'm not sure if this is too broad, but would it address this element of GPL compatibility? - Mike On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > Josh, > > For your reference, the explicit intention of the OD v2 was to make it > clear that all the specifications of GPL family were *included*. That you > have noticed some inadequacies in the wording simply highlights yet again > the problems with the process of creating a finalized draft and then just > announcing it as final instead of pushing for wider feedback. > > Personally, I completely support changing the OD to assure that it fully > accepts all the GPL terms and also adding reference to the Free Software > definition in the intro. > > Side note: I fully appreciate that Herb already acknowledged my recent > concerns and agreed about the idea of publishing a release-candidate for > comment before jumping to final. Just to add some perspective for those > following all this: the reason a release-candidate comment-period is so > critical isn't just to be strict about process. There's been an unfortunate > common reply to my concerns along the lines of "we discussed publicly for a > year, and anyone could participate." I see that point as inadequate. It's > not a question of whether anyone *could* participate, but a question of > whether everyone we'd want included *did* actually participate. If, at > the end of the year, we know there are lots of potentially interested and > useful people who were not involved, then we need to work to get their > thoughts. This is *not* about participation itself, it's about the fact > that when Josh comes along, he has important critiques. > > I really hope we all embrace the idea of publishing release-candidates for > comment after drafting process for *everything* going forward. No excuses > about how people *could* have participated. Their last-minute comments > being excluded hurts everyone. It isn't about *their* interests > particularly, but the interests of the whole project. > > I propose that we go through this, draft the 2.1 version of the OD, > consider all these critiques that have come up, and even then publish a > release-candidate of 2.1 before finalizing. It already stinks that we > couldn't include these concerns in v2 proper. > > Best, > Aaron > > -- > Aaron Wolf > wolftune.com > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Joshua Gay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The Open Definition 2.0 Section 2.2.5 Source states: "The license may >> require modified works to be made available in a form preferred for further >> modification." >> >> However, it does not state that a license may require unmodified works to >> be made available in a form preferred for further modifications. >> >> But, this means that works licensed under any version of the GNU GPL, GNU >> LGPL, and GNU AGPL apparently do not conform with the definition of >> "Open", as these licenses require users to make available the corresponding >> source when distributing/conveying *unmodified* versions of a work. >> >> Further, while the GPL defines "preferred modifiable form" as the source >> code, it also requires you to distribute other things besides the source >> code, such as build scripts and in some cases installation information >> alongside the source code. >> >> I suspect that most people would like to think of works licensed under >> the GNU GPL, LGPL, and AGPL are"open," and that this definition was not >> meant to define such works as "closed"/"not open." >> >> If there is something I am missing, and I am wrong about my >> interpretation, then I apologize ahead of time. If, on the other hand, the >> definition was written this way intentionally, then I recommend putting >> these licenses on the non-conformant list and maybe even making special >> mention of this fact somewhere. >> >> Lastly -- and this is purely a matter of personal annoyance/opinion, and >> not feedback of technical nature: I find it annoying that the Free Software >> Definition is not linked to or referenced in the introduction section. >> After all, isn't it kind of the primogenitor of all the other definitions >> you link to? :-) >> >> Best, >> Josh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> okfn-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
