RE: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works
From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms" instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...". [DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL is more restrictive than the OSD definition. Such a definition would take the BSD, XFree and various other licenses outside the definition, probably more than halving the amount of software covered. The intention is clearly that the GPL be covered by the OSD definition, so you can be "open source" but GPLed if you want a more restrictive definition. Note that you cannot always merge software from two different OSD compatible licenses. I would guess that one of the main starting points for the OSD was that GPL and BSD licenses both be fully compatible. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works
Christoph Steinbeck scripsit: What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.). The BSD license allows just this, and it is both Open Source and Free. The point of point 3 is that the original author can't prevent the free (libre) distribution of derivative works created under the original license. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works
Christoph Steinbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.). The other replies explained why the wording is "allow" instead of "require" in OSD point #3. They were accurate. I think you asked a deeper question. And a lot has been written on the subject if you dig around. (Lots of flame wars too, and I don't want to start one here.) In the big picture, - existing copyright law creates very broad restrictions. - A software license is permission to do something not already permitted by copyright law. (Some licenses are written as contracts, which would mean that copyright law isn't the starting place. The contract has all terms and conditions, and may even restrict something that was allowed under copyright laws. ) - Every license meeting the OSD must provide certain permissions. - The OSD allows other restrictions and permissions to be part of the license. (This is where the GPL and BSD-style licenses differ.) The way you phrased your question, it seems you already understand the freedom-ensuring benefits of the GPL. The BSD or MIT-style license provides the benefit of being able to re-use software in proprietary works as well as open source works. Some authors find that benefit more compelling than the benefits of the GPL. (If I say anything more, I'll be taken as a troll, I fear. Trust me, there has been a lot of discussion. Should be easy to find.) Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works
Thanks to everyone who answered. The replies pretty much covered everything that I wanted to know and they removed a missunderstanding. Regards, Chris -- Dr. Christoph Steinbeck (http://www.ice.mpg.de/departments/ChemInf) MPI of Chemical Ecology, Carl-Zeiss-Promenade 10, 07745 Jena, Germany Tel: +49(0)3641 643644 - Fax: +49(0)3641 643665 What is man but that lofty spirit - that sense of enterprise. ... Kirk, "I, Mudd," stardate 4513.3..
