On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote:
1) The OpenSource definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very
clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not
prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.
2) given the fact that the GPL is an aproved OSS licensse, it obviously
complies with the OSS definition.
3) as a result, any GPL interpretation that is based on the assumption
that a separate distribution would fix problems is wrong.
I don't disagree with you, but 1&2 do not lead to 3. 1 does not even
necessarily lead to 2.
OSI/OSS is not definitive. A license is not open source because of
its approval by OSI and it is not not-open source because of its
absence in OSI. For licenses that are approved, it's still possible
that OSI made a mistake (because licenses are complicated things
after all).
You cannot depend on OSI, which has no legal standing, to back up any
claim of what a given license must or must not support. In absence
of case law, the only definitive measure of a license is the license
itself.
Even what the FSF may say about the GPL isn't necessarily the case.
In (3) you are talking about a GPL interpretation and trying to say
something definitive about it based on what is just someone else's
(OSI's) interpretation.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
