on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:09:53PM +0000, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Friday April 13 2001 06:14 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > #3: BSD complies, but is weak because it does not use a copyleft mechanism
> > to require that the right to make derived works to be carried forward to
> > each recipient.
>
> There's nothing in #3 that requires the the permissions to be carried forward.
> It doesn't say "must require", only "must allow".
>
> > [ as a side note, I think this is one of the places where the OSD itself is
> > flawed. The language of #2 should say, in my opinion: "The license must
> > allow modifications and derived works, and must REQUIRE them to be
> > distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
> > ]
>
> Then you would have to dump out all non-copyleft licenses (as the general
> community defines copyleft). And you would have to through out most
> dual-licensed programs as well. Copyleft licenses may be the preferred
> licenses of the FSF, but they are not the only ones. And this isn't the FSF.
>
> There may possibly be a need in some community for a mechanism to determine
> the copylefted-ness or perpetualness of licenses. But that's not the purpose
> of the OSI.
Ryan's got a view, to which he may or may not be entitled, which is at
odds with the general consensus here. The point's you're making have
been explained to him. I generally stop arguing when the argument
starts iterating. It's iterated about three times now.
Ryan *has* uncovered an interesting, and potentially significant, issue
regarding the OSD, Frank Hecker's comments in this thread explore
further.
I'd suggest dropping this particular branch of the thread, however.
Cheers.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
PGP signature
