The Open Definition 2.0 Section 2.2.5 Source states: "The license may require modified works to be made available in a form preferred for further modification."
However, it does not state that a license may require unmodified works to be made available in a form preferred for further modifications. But, this means that works licensed under any version of the GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, and GNU AGPL apparently do not conform with the definition of "Open", as these licenses require users to make available the corresponding source when distributing/conveying *unmodified* versions of a work. Further, while the GPL defines "preferred modifiable form" as the source code, it also requires you to distribute other things besides the source code, such as build scripts and in some cases installation information alongside the source code. I suspect that most people would like to think of works licensed under the GNU GPL, LGPL, and AGPL are"open," and that this definition was not meant to define such works as "closed"/"not open." If there is something I am missing, and I am wrong about my interpretation, then I apologize ahead of time. If, on the other hand, the definition was written this way intentionally, then I recommend putting these licenses on the non-conformant list and maybe even making special mention of this fact somewhere. Lastly -- and this is purely a matter of personal annoyance/opinion, and not feedback of technical nature: I find it annoying that the Free Software Definition is not linked to or referenced in the introduction section. After all, isn't it kind of the primogenitor of all the other definitions you link to? :-) Best, Josh
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
