On Sun Jun 22 15:40:06 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [ ...I haven't seen this message appear on the list; resend... ] > > 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.
I understand where someone wouldn't want their code destroyed, perverted, whatever. However, broken or malicious is a bit of a judgement call, is it not? I have a hard time seeing where the line would be drawn. OSD #4 already provides a way for an author to distinguish what constitutes an `authentic' version. Might that not be enough? Then a body (person whatever) can bless the authentic/proven-correct/secure/whatever version but everyone can still distribute modifications. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
