Colin 't Hart scripsit: > At http://www.openmap.org/ it is claimed that > the OpenMap(TM) package is Open Source. Wandering > over to www.opensource.org I find this claim no > longer means what it used to, and that it doesn't > mean that much if it doesn't say 'OSI Certified'.
Well, it can't be trademarked. But it has plenty of meaning to the community. > I was wondering if OpenMap's license > (http://openmap.bbn.com/license.html) > was being considered by OSI for certification? Probably not, but anyone can propose it, even you. Of course, if OSI wants modifications, you won't be able to make them. > In particular I'm not sure what some clauses entail > (such as clauses 3 and 9) 3 says that BBN gets to reuse any derivative works you make, even ones that are closed-source to everyone else; it's an asymmetry clause similar to the one in the NPL. 9 just says that you agree that the stuff you contribute as your source code really is your source code and doesn't belong to someone else, like your employer. > and whether there is > anything that's in this license that would be > an impediment to OSI certification? I see nothing (IANAL, TINLA, IANAOSI). > Such certification would give me the peace-of-mind > that it is worth creating derivative works of > software under this license. The license is a variant of the Artistic License used for Perl. -- Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter, Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): [EMAIL PROTECTED] One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
