| Nick Welch 2005-03-06, 2:48 am |
| > Thanks for pointing this out. Now we have a concrete example of just
> how screwed up OSI is. That licence does not grant any permission to
> modify, redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner.
> For it to be judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition is
> ludicrous.
Interesting. Based on discussions I have seen/been in on OSI's mailing
list, the license is basically the same (or intended to be) as the MIT/X
or BSD licenses, except that it requires notification of the license
terms instead of simple inclusion (i.e. to prevent trying to
hide/obfuscate it)
http://www.mail-archive.com/license...g/msg07011.html
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm...gdonepiacdbcied
As far as disallowing modification/redistribution/etc., that is not what
the license intends to do -- it's basically supposed to just be a
minimalist "do what you want with this, but give me credit" license.
If the wording implies restriction of modifications and whatnot, then it
would seem that there have been some big misunderstandings all around.
--
Nick Welch aka mackstann | mack @ incise.org | http://incise.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|