Re: Is the Guile license OSI approved?

2001-11-29 Thread Andy Tai

Given the history of Free Software and Open Source
(that Open Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens)
or marketing program (Eric Raymond) for Free
Software), can there be any question that a software
license the Free Software Foundation published is not
Open Source?

FSF may never seek OSI approval for its licenses (the
source needs no approval from the derivative), but
implicitly any GNU software license is Open Source... 

--- Martin Wolters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 To whom it may concern:
 
 You can find a few open source projects on the web
 that use the so 
 called guile license which is the GPL + the
 following paragraph:
 
 
  As a special exception, if you link this
 library with other files
  to produce an executable, this library does
 not by itself cause
  the resulting executable to be covered by the
 GNU General Public
  License. This exception does not however
 invalidate any other
  reasons why the executable file might be
 covered by the GNU
  General Public License. 
 
 
 Example project: 
 http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaxp/
 
 I expect, that software which uses this kind of
 license is still OSI 
 certified although the license does not appear on
 the list of OSI 
 approved licenses. Is this a correct assumption?
 
 -Martin W.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3



Re: Is the Guile license OSI approved?

2001-11-29 Thread J C Lawrence

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:10:42 -0800 (PST) 
Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open
 Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program
 (Eric Raymond) for Free Software), can there be any question that
 a software license the Free Software Foundation published is not
 Open Source?

Yes, tho for political reasons you're unlikely to ever see that
response by OSI.  It is relatively easy to argue, for instance, that
the viral properties of the GPL are excessively restrictive and
violate the spirit if not intent of the OSS definition -- but then
that's an old, well thrashed, and very dead religious war.

-- 
J C Lawrence
-(*)Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   He lived as a devil, eh?  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3