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

Re: DRAFT d-l summary of the OSL v2.0

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:22:53AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:

>> Hrm.  I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be
>> interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all?
> My considered opinion is that DFSG #5 and #6 are horrible blunders
> that don't mean at all what they say. With a little ingenuity, you can
> argue that *anything* either is or is not in violation of either or
> both of these clauses.

I agree with that, actually.  But then how do you address the original
issue (i.e., why is "if you deploy, distribute source" non-free)?

> They're supposed to prohibit this sort of license clause (all real
> examples, albeit not with precise wording):
>  - This software may not be used in nuclear power plants.
>  - This software may not be used by the US government.
>  - This software may only be used for non-commercial purposes.
> And there they stop. Rewriting the DFSG to eliminate this confusion is
> fairly high on my todo list.

What do you think of the wording I suggested replacing #6 with?  Reproduced:

6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use

The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
purpose.  For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in a
business, from being used for genetic research, or from being used to
provide web services.

By replacing "field of endeavor" with "use" it's narrower in one sense
(anything can be a field of endeavor, but "use" is relatively well
defined), but broader in another by talking about all (or at least most)
use restrictions.

As for #5, I'm not sure what purpose it serves that isn't served just as
well by the remaining clauses -- especially with an explicit freedom to

> [It is approximately valid to say that they're redundant, if you read
> the entire DFSG in the lax manner that these two clauses require. But
> we can do much better than that.]

I don't relish using the reasoning Henning Makholm proposed either.  But
so far I haven't seen anything to replace it with.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: