Giacomo A. Catenazzi writes: > 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?
Because over the lifetime of OSI, various people have tried to interpret the OSD as allowing restrictions on usage. > 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?)] Yes, BitKeeper's public license. But there's also a pending license (Sybase) which requires that users indicate their assent to the license through click-wrap or equivalent. *Users*. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
