Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php [...] > The Dissident test is under question and does not appear to have > broad support within Debian as an additional DFSG guideline, so the > objection to item #9 is irrelevant.
I'm not a dissident (well...), but I am a mirror site maintainer, and item #9 continues to worry me. >From that license: | If You distribute copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, | You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain | the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. Doesn't that make it somewhat impractical for mirror sites to carry OSL-licensed software? I can imagine that an author would consider it "reasonable" to require click-wrap approval of the license whenever a file's downloaded by HTTP, for example; that certainly seems to be the intent of that clause. (It's something we've implemented in the past for distributing non-free software, so it's definitely possible.) I'm not sure if it makes it non-free or not, but it would certainly be irritating for mirror site maintainers and users, particularly if other licenses (or other versions of this license) start doing the same thing -- imagine having to approve several licenses before downloading a Debian ISO image. Thanks, -- Adam Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://offog.org/>
