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.
You are familiar with the fact that Larry Rosen proposed a change to section 6 of the OSD in an attempt to clarify what is meant by "discriminatory", correct? Is it the case that you don't believe that any such change possibly might affect "the core notions of open source as reflected by the OSD"?
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.
Sean Chittenden proposed a license for OSD approval. The comments I referred to were in response to his proprosal, and are also related to Larry's proprosed change as mentioned above. Perhaps you should ask Sean whether he thought suggestions that his license should not be granted OSD approval due to being "anti GPL" had little do with his situation or the charter of this list?
Welcome to the Internet.
Thanks, although frankly, I found the Internet to be a more welcoming place ten or fifteen years ago.
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.
Please refer to Ian Lance Taylor's recent message, where he said: "Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant. I can only recall one. I argued against the license, but I said right
from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant."
[0] That would be what we call "petulance". Welcome to the Internet.
Hmm. Did what I say above make you feel petulant?
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
