On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > This may be a silly question as I'm probably overlooking something, > but as far as I can tell the Open Source Definition does not > forbid any general restrictions on "usage" of software. The closest > thing is "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", but > that only forbids exclusion of _some types_ of usage, not exclusions > on usage by everyone. > > Would something like "You may only use this editor if you release > all works you create with it as open source software" fail under > OSD #6, and if not, why would it fail the OSD?
I would argue that your clause (you may only use this editor if ...) fails OSD #6, because it prohibits the field of endeavor "creating non-open source software". The question that this does not address is how your restriction differs from the restriction in the GPL, (you may only create a derived work from this software if ...). That would also seem to prohibit the same field of endevour. However, the chief distinction is that concept of derived work. There is no field of endeavor of creating derived works from software that you are not the author of unless the author grants you that right. (This is one of the authors reserved rights under most theories of IP.) That is, without permission to create a derived work, one cannot create derived works at all, and thus it cannot be a field of endeavor. However, in distinction, one can create non-open source software using ones own IP. Thus, that can be a field of endeavor. Moreover, one can use a different editor to create such software. Thus, a usage restriction on a particular editor, would prohibit its use in that field of endeavor (which would otherwise be legal and thus a valid field of endeavor). And to my mind that contrvenes OSD #6. However, IANAL. Moreover, there is no court that has ever ruled on this particular point to say whether the argument is valid or not. Still, I am interested in other peoples impressions of this argument. The reason being, I am considering drafting a license which makes approximately that distinction. It is a license that is viral like the GPL except that it defines its point of requiring "open sourcing" of the resulting works the point of derivation rather than the point of redistribution. That is, one must release an open source copy of the derived work when one creates such a derived work, not only when one distributes such a derived work. (There are many details to work out, which is why I have not submitted it for review.) I am hoping that such a restriction will not be considered contravening the OSD, and that the license will become approved. -Chris ***************************************************************************** Chris Clark Internet : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compiler Resources, Inc. Web Site : http://world.std.com/~compres 19 Bronte Way #33M voice : (508) 435-5016 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA fax : (508) 251-2347 (24 hours) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
