RE: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works

2001-03-28 Thread Dave J Woolley
From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms" instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...". [DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL is

Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works

2001-03-28 Thread John Cowan
Christoph Steinbeck scripsit: What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.). The BSD license allows just this, and it is both Open Source and Free. The point of point 3 is that the original author can't prevent the free

Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works

2001-03-28 Thread Forrest J Cavalier III
Christoph Steinbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) What is the point of letting them change the code and change the license to whatever they like (proprietory, e.g.). The other replies explained why the wording is "allow" instead of "require" in OSD point #3. They were accurate. I

Re: The Open Source Definition: 3. Derived Works

2001-03-28 Thread Christoph Steinbeck
Thanks to everyone who answered. The replies pretty much covered everything that I wanted to know and they removed a missunderstanding. Regards, Chris -- Dr. Christoph Steinbeck (http://www.ice.mpg.de/departments/ChemInf) MPI of Chemical Ecology, Carl-Zeiss-Promenade 10, 07745 Jena, Germany