Russell Nelson scripsit:
> Is your next step going to be to stand up at the O'Reilly Open Source
> Conference and proclaim "It's not a free software license. Don't use
> it!" Sorry, but you're sounding like a certain zealot, the way you
> phrased that paragraph.
No, I've said my bit, unless the OSL starts to become boomingly popular.
BTW, my next piece of software will be released under the AFL.
> John, go read the proposed GPLv3. People who like the GPLv2 (and you
> may not be be one of them) tend to like the GPLv3. And those who
> don't like the GPLv2 REALLY don't like the GPLv3. The OSL is no more
> or less an attempt to be compatible with the GPLv3 before it's
> published (unless I miss my mark).
It's a *lot* wider in its demands than the Moglen/RMS posting you pointed me
to, or the Affero Public License. It's hardly possible to lay a finger
on OSL software for any purpose without being deemed to be a distributor.
"There is too much of this damned deeming."
--Lord Mildew in _Travers v. Travers_
--
Only do what only you can do. John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--Edsger W. Dijkstra, http://www.reutershealth.com
deceased 6 August 2002 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
