On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 22:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > [...] > > Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and > > as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause > > incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In > > summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some > > points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in > > debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a > > open source license to be DFSG OK too. > [...] > > Therefore I fail to see why *any* program > > under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I > > would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me > > wrong. > > The main differences between Debian and OSI do not lie in the letter of > the DFSG and of the OSD. The two sets of items are indeed similar. > > The main differences are in the ways the two sets of items are > *interpreted* by the two organizations. > The Debian Project explicitly states that the DFSG are *guidelines* and > interprets them to decide whether a *package* is or is not Free > Software. Thanks a lot for pointing that out. > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG, but treats it as a *definition*, that is > to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order > for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. > However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that > it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable > gets approved, sooner or later... If I understand this correctly, it is just the different way of interpreting these rules that make some of the OSI licenses conflict with the DFSG. I really don't like that ... I still don't see how/where the debian interpretation is more strict but I can nevertheless not understand why there is no consensus as this is just not a desirable situation if someone chooses to license a program as open source - which will then still not make it into `open source distributions' such as debian. So I would want to know which of the osi-open source licenses are not DFSG OK. > IMHO, the term "Open Source" has gradually become totally meaningless, > because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI (and, ironically, > because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and > abuses the term "Open Source" to mean anything, just since it's a trendy > term...). Actually OSI recognized that it is not at all a good idea to have these 60+ licenses lying around and they are trying to clean up: http://www.opensource.org/proliferation#comment-1 http://opensource.org/osi3.0/proliferation-report Also they are may (will be?) enforcing that only osi-certified open source licenses are allowed to be called open source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070622-osi-to-take-more-active-role-in-open-source-definition-enforcement.html So things may improve. > Now, what is worse is that I fear the Debian Project is following OSI's > steps down the same slippery slope. > Debian has begun stretching the DFSG and accepting stuff that IMO should > have never entered the main archive (GFDL-ed documents without > unmodifiable parts, CC-by-v3.0- and CC-by-sa-v3.0- licensed works, to > name but a few...). > My concern is that, sooner or later, even "accepted in Debian main" will > become meaningless (from a Freeness standpoint, I mean)... :-( > And that makes me sad. Well I don't think it is that bad... Soeren -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part