Arnoud, OSD #6 talks about 'making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor', which seems to me to be completely compatible with FSF freedom 0 and incompatible with your example.
A license that restricts your use of an editor to produce closed source software is stopping you from making use of the program in a field of endeavor. The destinction between that and restrictions on redistribution and derivatives is IMO very clear. Making a derivative of a program is not the same as making use of the program you received. Nor is redistributing a program (or derivative) the same as making use of it. Thus a license can apply restrictions on derivatives and redistribution without violating OSD #6. Summary: your example would fail OSD #6 and FSF freedom 0. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Brian. On Wednesday 15 October 2003 17:51, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Hi, > > 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? > > The FSF says quite clearly that you should have "The freedom to > run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)". Is this the > same as OSD #6 or do they indeed require something broader here? > > Arnoud -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
