Lewis Collard scripsit: > Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. > (No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.)
I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD. > Anyway, this discussion should be about whether the P9L qualifies as > open source, and as you pointed out the "termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit" > problem is clearly bad enough to disqualify the license alone. I don't know. I see why RMS thinks it's overkill, but does it contravene the OSD? I'd like to hear from people on that point. > On the subject of RMS's article, he considers the Artistic license > non-free too and in that he is consistent in dismissing the Plan9 > license, which is far more restrictive. (I'd be interested to see his > comments on the OSL.) I'd rather he waited for OSL 1.1 to be released. I think he'd accept it as free-incompatible-with-GPL. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
