Re: OSD && DFSG convergence
Adam DiCarlo writes:
> I applaud this, but I don't think a literal merging of the OSD and
> DFSG (from which the OSD derived) is feasible, nor does it really (in
> itself) create solidarity with us or other free software projects.
No, but it's a start. At very least what could happen is a periodic
re-synching of the two documents. A discussion of why that could not
happen would be eliducating.
> Finally, as Steve pointed out, I'm sure the OSI would wish to maintain
> their own autonomy in determining if particular licenses are "open
> source", just as we in Debian need our own autonomy in doing so.
We could still do so based on identical documents.
> Speaking for myself, of course, if the autonomy of the projects I
> work on are slowly usurped by remote bureaucratic, unaccountable
> organizations, I feel the fun of it all might start to seep away,
> and I might be inclined to wander off and do other things.
I share your fear of remote bureaucratic, unaccountable organizations.
> I might suggest, however, you approach the LSB or other larger free
> software standards organizations regarding a community-wide definition
> of "free software", "open source", or whatever you want to call it.
The problem here is that it is *you* who is angry at *us*. We feel a
need to heal that rift, and by "we" I mean the boards of the Open
Source Initiative, Inc. and Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
> If your only interest really is in mending fences between the OSI and
> other free-software projects such as Debian, I'm sure there are more
> productive means of doing so.
Suggest away. We'll add them to the TODO list. Ean and I talked
about it at Linux World, and decided to start here.
> For instance, if you look at how point (2), "Source Code", is
> different between the DFSG and the OSD, you can see how we have a bit
> of specificity which we would need but in terms of a general open
> source definition would be inappropriate.
> > I'm inclined to believe that your second example is also a minor
> > issue, because if the software is DFSG-compliant in all other
> > respects, it should be possible to legally remove the click-wrap
> > requirement from the code -- just as you can charge someone a fee
> > for giving them GPL software, but you cannot prevent them from
> > giving it away for free once they have it.
> Hmm. Yes, I would think the Deiban maintainer would be able to strip
> the click-wrap, or if not, the software wouldn't really be DFSG-free
> anyhow, would it?
On what basis do you think you can remove objectionable terms of a
license? Where does it say that in the DFSG? Conversely, where does
it say in the DFSG that a license must not require click-wrap, or
indeed, any other type of affirmative assent?
> I would think it would be better to say that the license must not
> require that the user have to specifically acknowledge the license in
> order to go into effect.
That dog won't hunt.
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.