On Sunday 11 April 2004 19.49, Walter Landry wrote: > > I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more > > clearly stated here in the OSL. But perhaps I am wrong? > > I use Google. If Google used OSL licensed code, then they would have > to make the source available. That is not the case with GPL'd works.
Oh... one learns something new every day. I clearly sympathise with OSL here, if someone deploys my software, the source code should be made available. So it makes me favour OSL even more. I don't like allowing "work-arounds", so one can deploy software without sharing the source. The classical work-around is putting all free software in a library and escaping the responsibilities that way, but even GPL disallows that. Tunneling the user interface through a web server is to me just a variation on the theme. > > However, now to the important point here, since GPL and OSL gives > > the user more rights than she/he would have if the license is not > > accepted, click-wrap is only a theoretical problem. > > This is not true. The OSL goes beyond the domain of copyright, and > that is perhaps why they require a click-wrap. For example, if I > lawfully acquire a copy of GPL licensed code, I can use it to my > heart's content without worrying about the GPL. It is only when I > want to make copies that I need concern myself with the GPL. The > OSL, in contrast, wants to put some burdens on usage. Ah, I see the difference now. There is indeed some elegance in having a license cleanly relating to copyright. If it is true that this makes a difference requiring click-wrap or not, it is a clear advantage. No-one likes click-wrap procedures. > > And a comment on #10, the patent action clause. I think DFSG should > > be changed if necessary to allow these kind of clauses. The clause > > does not discriminate anyone, it is just a small protection against > > the largest threat against free software there is -- software > > patents. Nearly all commercial licenses have these type of clauses. > > If you want a patent protection clause, use something like the IBM > CPL. It revokes _patent_ licenses, not copyright licenses. Such clauses is only useful for patent owners (that is companies) that sells patent licenses. To me, and probaby the majority of free software, such a clause is meaningless since I have not filed any patents. > > And to a final question, if I change the license to OSL for my > > software, can it then no longer be distributed with Debian? > > The final decision rests with the ftp-masters, but I don't think that > Debian will distribute it. Hmm, ok. Although I sympathise with the extra limitations put into place with OSL, I'm not religious about it, so I'll continue to keep my software under the GPL for now. /Anders Torger
