stef, It is a known fact that the point behind the OD text was to *include* the GPL, so the fact that the text seems problematic is *absolutely* an issue of being out of line with the intention. There is no question about this. There is no need to check about whether there's some special intention behind the particular wording. *Nobody* who worked on the OD *intended* to exclude the GPL's requirement that unmodified redistributions include the modifiable source.
I still stand by what I said before: We *should* update this, but the the current OD v2 does *not* exclude particular terms merely because they are omitted. It does not say that the written list of acceptable and prohibited clauses is a strictly complete list. Cheers, Aaron -- Aaron Wolf wolftune.com On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:45 AM, stef <[email protected]> wrote: > joshs concerns are quite interesting and seem plausible, is it possible to > track who the author of said lines was and get his reasoning behind the > text? > > [the metathread on process also quite interesting, but i think it kinda > digressed from joshs original question, so i retrigger it] > > -- > otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
