Russell Nelson wrote: > > s/BSD/GPL/, burn a CD, and send it to me. You are now using a > GPL-licensed OS. But that's besides the point, really. The point is > whether a license which is open source can become not so if a patent > license is included with it.
Framed that way, certainly. But can a license that discriminates against certain classes of users be Open Source, even if it offers *some* rights even to the discriminated-against group? And no, I don't find the supposed parallel to the SISSL at all convincing. The SISSL offers a choice: keep your code proprietary but open-standards, or deviate from the standards and publish your code. This choice affects developers, not users. The SISSL grants an unlimited royalty-free patent license. The Intel license affects users directly, limiting what they can use the code for. It prohibits extension or re-use of the code by developers. It breaches both the letter and the spirit of the OSD. It ought not to be approved by OSI. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3