On 01/17/2015 01:57 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > OSI's criteria for open source licenses doesn't include any review of > whether the *license used inbound* would be respectful of developers' > rights and desires for the use of their code, encourage healthy > collaboration in the community of developers, allow for ongoing > maintenance of an established codebase by an ever-changing group of > developers, empower groups who want to do active GPL enforcement, > etc, etc. [my emphasis]
I see your point. I agree these issues are not part of a review for OSD compliance. The relevant aspect here, seems to me, is that OSI's criteria for open source licenses *include* whether the *license used inbound* is giving rights to anyone receiving the software, as set out in the OSD. Anyone includes the "project", a legal entity behind the project, the interest groups around a project, just like it includes individual users, recipients of the software from the original developer or project, etc. OSI criteria do this by OSD #5, #6 and #7. > A single legal document is perfectly adequate to cover both > contribution and receiving, and I expect any license OSI has approved > would be fine used inbound=outbound. But when OSI approves a license > it is only making a statement that the license meets the outbound > criteria of the OSD. From the above, it follows that when OSI approves a license, it is making a statement that the license meets the criteria of the OSD, *whether used inbound or outbound*. (Therefore, I don't guess it would be fine used inbound=outbound. It is fine. It *has* to be. Solely from the perspective of the rights set out in OSD, that is.) -- ~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss