Chuck Swiger scripsit: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?
Because the OSD (or rather its ancestor, the DFSG) is an abstraction from
the details of the then-known free/open-source software licenses: the GPL,
the BSD, the X11, the Artistic, the LGPL. The definition's been refined
since then, and lots of new OSD-conformant licenses have been designed,
but if the OSD is refined so that these original licenses can't be called
Open Source any more, then it's been effectively refined out of existence.
We are in agreement that the OSD should not change in a fashion that would invalidate the classic open source licenses you've mentioned. My concern is not to favor one of those licenses over the others with regard to proposed changes to the OSD.
What happens if a proposed license is compliant with the OSD, yet conflicts
with the GPL?
There are already plenty of Open Source licenses that are incompatible with
the GPL by the terms of the GPL.
Agreed.
So far there are none that are incompatible
with the GPL by their own terms. I don't see that this makes much difference.
By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with Sean's license "being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms", and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
