Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm going to propose a change the Open Source Definition at our board
meeting next Thursday.  It is simply this:

0) A license may not restrict use or modification of a lawfully
obtained copy of a work.

Anybody have problems with this?  Does this have any problems?
I've two questions:
Why this change?
What is really changed by this?
[Somebody can give me some example of real licenses that don't follow
this point? (Bitkeeper's public license?)]

ciao
] giacomo



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to