On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > : Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates > : OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work,
> I think you have to evaluate the license in the context of what the author > has told us about his purpose. I at least partially disagree. Open source licenses should be considered by OSI in the context of open source software. > The GNU LGPL, for example, makes more sense when you consider its > purpose. The LGPL made sense to me when I read LGPL section 3. Without that, I very much hope it wouldn't be considered open source. > We are told that RSPL is intended to be used for libraries, which is > similar to one the principle purposes of the GNU LGPL. The GNU LGPL is > an OSD compliant and OSI-approved open source license. I have zero objection to RPI using the LGPL. In fact I heartily recommend it, and I believe it meets their needs at this point if they simply add an extra-license note that work submitted to RPI becomes the property of RPI. > Section 2a, of the RSPL, which states that "The modified work must itself be > a software library" is identical to the GNU LGPL. Hence, no problem there. This requirement is problem in the LGPL, and a big problem in the RPSL. It is no problem in the LGPL because LGPL section 3 makes it an optional requirement. In the RPSL, it's an absolute requirement. You cannot take restrictive bits of an open-source license, remove the permissive bits, and expect the result to be considered open-source. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
