Russ & Open Source friends, I'm fairly new to this group, though immensly interested from a perspective of how Open Source and for-profit corporations can work together- so please grant me a *little* bit of leeway. I've tried to stay out of the discussion, as I am in no way an expert in this field. Though the last comment pushed me over the edge into the world of participation.
I just tried to visit the website to see if BitKeeper's license is already OSD approved- but the site isn't there. It's part of my argument, so I'll go out on a limb and assume it is OSD approved. If not, you can safely ignore part of this email, though it's only half of the argument. :) I would think it bad faith to change the definition based on a pending license in order to be able to specifically exclude this license. This may not be the case- but from the (very) outside- that's what it looks like. Also, I would think it counter productive to change the definition when an existing license already has such a clause- you'd either have to revoke approval on the existing license (again bad faith), or you're in a very difficult situation when people suggest new licenses based on that one. After all- an approved license contains an un-approvable clause; so there's a valid case for a precident argument. Russ writes: >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*. > It looks like the Sybase license might be on an approval track; that maybe it meets the current OSD definition. But someone doesn't like a particular clause in the license- and without a rule that specifically prohibits said clause, there's no justification to deny the license.... so change the rule and the license can be denied? I don't see significant harm in users indicating consent via click-wrap. As a matter of fact, my lawyers insist on it when I write commercial software. Excluding such an "action" (which according to our lawyers makes the license slightly more enforcable) will not encourage commercial entities to participate in Open Source. I would hope that the OpenSource.org community would actually encourage commercial entities to find a way to participate. That's where I am now- trying to figure out how to make payroll (including my own salary) for a commercial project that is Open Source. But it didn't work for Eazel... Maybe I'm in the wrong place? If click-wrap is specifically excluded, then our product and desired license also won't meet the OSD. So maybe it will just have to be open source (with a lower case "O" and "S")? Please don't take my remarks as intending to be inflamatory- I'm not trying to push the Gospel of Gates on your group. :) I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way for Commercial and Open Source to co-exist; or better yet live symbioticly. Regards, James E. Harrell, Jr., CEO Copernicus Business Systems, LLC -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
