Mark Rafn wrote:
It may not be pertinent to the licensor's need. I very much hope it is pertinent to OSI's need to restrict use of it's service mark only to software which can be freely modified.
Does OSD #3 mean that "The license must allow [ALL] modifications and derived works, ...", without any restrictions? If the OSD should be interpreted to mandate that a compliant license may not forbid deliberately broken or malicious redistributions, then my frank opinion is that the OSD should be changed.
-- -Chuck
PS: Yes, I'm repeating myself, but this is an important point that deserves clarification. Besides, I'm still waiting for the OSI board's response to the ENRL. Circa 2003-5-29, Russell Nelson told me that the board was meeting to review last month's proposed licenses, and that he would recommend against approval, but I haven't heard anything since.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
