APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use
and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations).
Yes, it does, however in both cases the licensing satisfies the Open
Source Definition. It's like making boys use the boys room and girls
use the girls
Bob Scheifler writes:
So the word restrict in OSD#6 (and the word prevent in the rationale)
should be interpreted narrowly to mean completely preclude? Meaning,
there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing;
it's (definitionally) acceptable for the license to
Yes. This is a trivially approvable open source license: ...
I'm the chairman, and I write up the consensus of the list for the OSI board.
Thanks very much for the information!
- Bob
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Bob Scheifler asked:
So the word restrict in OSD#6 (and the word prevent in the rationale)
should be interpreted narrowly to mean completely preclude? Meaning,
there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing;
I think completely preclude would be *too* narrow. My sense
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor,
I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the
license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and
a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear
to be a few approved licenses that make such a
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor,
I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the
license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and
a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear
to be a few approved licenses that make such a
My take on the discrimination against fields of
endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for
use in any particular industry. I don't see where the
RPL does that. Everyone that enhances or modifies RPL
code is required to share their resulting code(if
they use it) with the world. Granted,
Thanks for the response.
Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak
for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)...
(My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some
possible examples to help set context.)
The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which
Thanks for the response.
My take on the discrimination against fields of
endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for
use in any particular industry.
The phrasing of term #6, as well as the written rationale for it,
seem to me to be broader than particular industry. The term itself
gives
9 matches
Mail list logo
