Quoting Chuck Swiger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Someone recently made a comment that the GPL will always be an > OSD-approved license regardless of what the actual definitions are[0]; > 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?
The reason GPLv2[1] will always be OSD-compliant is that it complies with the core notions of what open source is. Those core notions aren't likely to change. > What happens if a proposed license is compliant with the OSD, yet > conflicts with the GPL? If applied in a suitable manner[2], the result is open-source software. > 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"? Might be. That would be what we call "off-topic chatter", having little to do with this list's charter. Welcome to the Internet. > 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. Who, for example? If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not, for example), then they only have opinions like other featherless bipeds, and not a direct say in the matter. [0] That would be what we call "petulance". Welcome to the Internet. [1] Obviously, future versions of that licence (that don't yet exist) may be a different manner. [2] Declaring that a codebase is under an OSI-approved licence doesn't in itself suffice to make any particular instance of that codebase open source, e.g., if you issue a binary-only copy and declare it to be BSD-licensed. -- Cheers, Rick Moen This .signature intentionally left blank. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
