Re: The APSL and Export Controls

[Chip Salzenberg <chip@perlsupport.com>]

According to Seth David Schoen:
> If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lot of room for
> confusion, perhaps because of the number of things the DFSG took for
> granted.

OSI has never made an explicit or implicit contract to call something
"Open Source" just because it meets the OSD.  So the OSD really is
still just a set of guidelines.  But the guidelines are so good that
most of the time they need no great amount of interpretation.

> It's easy to get the impression that the lawyers who write many of
> these licenses don't _actually_ want to give up some sort of
> "control" over the code, and are looking for loopholes in the OSD.

True.  That's their job.  OTOH, there's a reason they're called
"corporate counsel" -- they give counsel, but they need not be obeyed
if other factors are considered more important by management.

> If "Open Source" is going to continue to be a useful and meaningful
> term, I think the OSI needs to be careful to hold users of the term
> to high standards; otherwise, the term could gradually become
> diluted in many different directions.

That is our intent.  A recent license was turned down because it might
*possibly* have met the letter of the OSD, but it definitely did *not*
meet the OSD's intent.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg      - a.k.a. -      <chip@perlsupport.com>
      "When do you work?"   "Whenever I'm not busy."