[no cc thanks] On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:16:03AM -0600, Nick Welch wrote: > > 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 [...] > 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. This is why random Joe off the street should not be writing licences. <tutorial topic="copyright" level="newbie"> By default, every creative work is provided the protection of copyright law. This includes the restriction of duplication, modification, "public display", and so forth -- the exact rights vary between jurisdictions, but certainly the act of modification, mass duplication and redistribution tends to be restricted. Absent an explicit notification to the contrary, the rights above are restricted to the copyright holder. Note that carefully: EXPLICIT NOTIFICATION. The licence provided to the wide world needs to say it in clear english that you are allowed to do those things normally restricted by copyright law. Otherwise, you're not allowed to do it, and hence the "licence" is not DFSG-free. </tutorial> - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature