Does a license have to comply with the published requirements (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) in order for the distributor or creator of the software to call it open source?
ACARA (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/projects/ACARA) is a program originally developed by NASA. ACARA is now being handled by the Open Channel Foundation (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com). ACARA's license terms (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/project/view_license.php?group_id=129&license_id=20) violate at least three points of the Open Source definition (AFAIK, IANAL), yet the Open Channel Foundation claims all of the software it distributes is open source. Is this OK from a legal standpoint? disclaimer: This is a possible NewsForge story; if you don't want to be quoted please say so in your reply. Tina Gasperson editor NewsForge.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
