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. Why? > > 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.
