Re: DRAFT d-l summary of the OSL v2.0
@ 23/04/2004 08:34 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
I interpreted them in a more strict sense: if you say in your license
that any field of endeavour can't *use* your software, you may be
voiding your license, or at least that clause (because you can't do it?
-- not a contract, remember?); but if you state in you license this
software may not (or may only) be *copied* or *redistributed* from/to
nuclear power plants (or the US govment, or non-commercial purposes or
in baby-killing machine shops), then your license is not DFSG-free.
I have mentioned here before the principle "what is written is valid"
and "what is not written is also written" (Herr Heidegger's principle of
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.
[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.]