At 4:23 PM +0200 on 8/12/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>> 1. LICENSE shall mean an open source (e.g., free software) license
>> which allows:
>
>Anthony,
>
> "open source" has a meaning, and is even trademarked, I think. This could
>turn around our license behind our backs.
It's not trademarked anymore. See the website, <http://www.opensource.org>.
And also, see their definition.
>
>>1. I propose that there shall be a single MAINTAINER, to be shall be
>>elected by the majority of the members of the OODL list and liable to
>>removal by the same fraction. I propose that any single decision or group
>>of decisions may be reversed by a majority vote, except for the provisions
>>of this document, once adopted, may be modified or extended to the extent
>>allowed by applicable law by a vote of two-thirds in the affirmative.
>
> This would basically mean one person can fork, completely re-write the
>license (he could perform a 100% vote to do this in his mind) and off they
>go. We're at a complicated PD license again.
Yeh, he can fork and create F'ed-upCard under a different licence, if he so
pleases.
But if MAINTAINER decides to fork off, then he's resigned as MAINTAINER. He
won't be able to call it OPENCARD. I really don't care what he does with
F'ed-upCard. So long as he does not call it OPENCARD.
>
>>1. I propose that there shall be two people elected by OODL to enter into a
>>contract with MAINTAINER that states that in the event of his removal from
>>office and the election of a successor he shall transfer legal possession of
>>the OPENCARD trademark and the OPENCARD copyright to the new MAINTAINER.
>
> Wouldn't my beloved CopyLeft be much easier and make things like this
>obsolete?
This is only to protect the name. Hell, we can all leave anyday and create
a product under a different name -- under either license. But your beloved
"copyleft" (GPL?!?!) would allow anyone to create anything and call it
OPENCARD.
But we don't want to have to do that -- we can more easily remove him.
