Hi,
Reading the 'rationale' for paragraph 5 of the OSD, it appeared to me that it
prohibits what the GPL does in paragraph 8. I will quote for your convenience:
OSD paragraph 5:
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale (thus not officially part of the OSD):
In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of
persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources.
Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the
process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for
certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of
applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law;
however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
GNU GPL paragraph 8:
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Of course I know the GPL is 'approved open source', but could someone explain
why this is not a contradiction?
As a 'side-track' interesting issue: what would be better 'for the community'?
A license that basically allows more than the law, OSD-like, which may produce
a dangerous pit-hole for developers to fall in, or one that allows law-enforced
restrictions to be incorporated in the license, like the GPL seems to do?
What are the consequences of allowing or prohibiting such restrictions to be
incorporated in a license?
--
Arnout Engelen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"If it sounds good, it /is/ good."
-- Duke Ellington
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
