On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has > > said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed > > under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed > > under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed > > code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. > > Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the > > archive. > > Inflammatory to who? To GPL users? Look at the reaction that > Microsoft has to the GPL? Heck, I'm inclined to agree with some of > their critiques of the GPL. Look at my reaction to the GPL: the > OSSAL. At least I'm here asking for review and critiques from some > people in the "open source" community. > > I thought about changing the words in the OSSAL to read as follows: > > <frag> > 3. Redistributions of source code and contributions (i.e. patches) to > source code may be licensed under more than one license and must > not have the terms of the OSSAL removed. If there are conflicting > terms between one or more licenses and the OSSAL, the terms in the > conflicting license must defer to the corresponding terms in the > OSSAL or the terms of the conflicting license are waived. > 4. If redistributions of source code, in either a textual or > non-textual form and any contributions made to source code, in > either a textual or non-textual form, are distributed under an > inheritive license, source code and its contributions must also be > distributed under the terms of the OSSAL. > 5. Redistributions of source code in either a textual or non-textual > form must not exclusively depend on software that requires > disclosure of source code unless an acceptable, usable, and > non-commercially available alternative exists in the market place. > </frag>
Infammatory to me, just as the GPL is; I don't like restrictions. I'm equally bothered by the indemnity clause that appears in my LPL license. However, just because I don't really want to use either the GPL or OSSAL, I would still call them equally open source. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
