Re: The APSL and Export Controls
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
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. - <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."