Re: [li18nux:517] PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines
Dan
Just to make it clear Open Motif is NOT under an Open Source license.
We do not claim this and make this very clear in our FAQ, see
http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html
I include some of the pertinent parts of the FAQ below:
regards
Andrew
QUESTION:
How does the Open Group Public license relate to other licenses?
ANSWER:
The Open Group Public License for Motif closely follows the IBM Public
License Version 1.0 , with an addition of the restriction (in clause
2) regarding the applicability only to Open Source operating systems.
QUESTION:
Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source
Guidelines?
ANSWER:
No. The Open Group Public License for Motif grants rights only to use
the software on or with operating systems that are themselves Open
Source programs. In restricting the applicability of the license to
Open Source platforms this does not meet term 8 of the Open Software
Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html).
QUESTION:
Will Motif be made Open Source in the future?
ANSWER:
Yes, we hope to be able to make a distribution under a license
complying with the Open Source guidelines sometime in the future. For
now this is as close as to Open Source as we could get.
QUESTION:
Why does The Open Group define the term "Open Source" in the license
when the definition exists at http://www.opensource.org ?
ANSWER:
Our lawyers required us to do this. The intent for the definition
is to be inline with the Open Source Definition Version 1.7 (see
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). An alternate way of reading
that paragraph is:
"Open Source" programs mean any software which meets the criteria
of the Open Source Definition Version 1.7 as published by the
Open Source Initiative (OSI) at www.opensource.org
QUESTION:
How does The Open Group define the term "Operating System" Does this
apply to the kernel or the complete distribution?
ANSWER:
The Open Group's intent is that this applies only to the kernel
of the operating system, without regard to any bundled utilities
or application software. This includes all known distributions of
Linux and BSD distributions.
On May 16, 8:34pm in "PROPOSAL: licensing ", Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> This is a proposal for the Free Standards Group licensing guidelines.
> This is primarly based on discussions, interviews, and talks from over
> the course of the last year. Most recently, this issue has resurfaced
> due to availability of Motif under an "open source" license, which may
> or may not meet the Open Source Definition (same as the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines).
>
> Going forward, I'd like to document this policy on the freestandards.org
> web page so we're all in sync. We also need to stick to our mission:
>
> We are a non-profit corporation organized to accelerate the use and
> acceptance of open source technologies through the application,
> development and promotion of standards.
>
> In other words, we shouldn't do things that sabotage the use and
> acceptance of open source technologies. For example, our specifications
> should not *require* software that isn't open source.
>
> If this proves to be too controversial, we can postpone a decision until
> later, but it seems fairly straightforward to me.
>
> Finally, it may not be the case that all parts of this proposal will
> work for all subsections of the Free Standards Group, but I do think it
> makes sense to have a single set of basic guidelines.
>
> -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT --
>
> - Free Standards Group specifications will be published on the internet
> (under a zero cost and non-restrictive license).
>
> - Free Standards Group software will be published on the internet
> (under an Open Source license). This includes both test suite and
> sample implementations.
>
> - An Open Source implementation of any specified software must exist
> (in a state sufficient for common use and deployment).
>
> - Any specifications referenced by our standards should be currently
> available to the public for a reasonable cost.
>
> - "Open Source" is defined by the Open Source Definition (Version 1.7)
> as published at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html with the following
> clarifications:
>
> - Clause 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
>
> While using the GPL for libraries is conformant with this OSD
> requirement, we do not want the runtime linking of any GPL
> libraries to be required for conformance with our standards.
>
> - Software licenses should be OSD-certified except in the case of
> licenses specifically approved by the Free Standards Group board.
>
> - Software commissioned by the Free Standards Group should be licensed
> under the appropriate license for the project (X11 license for X
> software, LGPL for most libraries, etc.) or using one of the
> "recommended" licenses (assuming it makes sense).
>
> - Software commissioned by the Free Standards Group should be copyright
> "Free Standards Group" unless it is being assigned to an approved
> legal entity (for example, the Free Software Foundation). (Large
> assignments need be approved, patches and other small contributions
> do not.)
>
> (Legally speaking, copyright assignments need to be signed by an
> officer of the company.)
>
> - "Recommended" licenses are currently the GPL (2.0) except for
> libraries, the LGPL (2.1) for libraries, and the MIT license.
>
> Notes:
>
> - The license for our test suites is not yet defined. A license that
> meets the special requires for test software needs to be located or
> written.
>
> - For reference, you may want to read the LSB mission document located
> at http://www.linuxbase.org/mission.html
>
> -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT -- DRAFT --
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
>-- End of excerpt from Daniel Quinlan
Reply to: