[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

Reply to: