Chuck Swiger wrote:In particular, I'd disagree with the "field of endeavor" clause if it is to be applied to exclude software under a "free source but no-commercial-redistribution" license from being OSD-compliant.
Such licenses are not OSD-compliant. They've been repeatedly rejected.
So they have, but I still see value in the OSD even if it is flawed.
Someone recently made a comment that the GPL will always be an OSD-approved license regardless of what the actual definitions are; if true, what does this imply if there exists privileged licenses that are not being evaluated on their merits against the OSD definitions as they are written?
What happens if a proposed license is compliant with the OSD, yet conflicts with the GPL? Would it be accurate to say that a fair number of people criticised Sean not on the merits of his license vis-a-vis the OSD, but for it being "anti-GPL"? The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over others.
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
