Darren O. Benham said: > > Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at > > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). > > Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI > board (but to say I am speaking FOR either entity)... > > I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either. > It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides > the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distributing > the software... Then they use their existing license. Remember it's not an AND, its an OR. If v1.0 says anyone can use it and v2.0 says anyone except armenians can use it and the page says v1.0 or later then I (an australian) can use either but an armenian will opt for v2.0
Why they have the "or later" is, I believe, for the following reason. Say the v1.0 license had some obscure part which, for some wierd reason, had a side effect of excluding armenians. The GPL/OPL authors would eventually realise this and update to v2.0 So the "or later" is actually freeing up the license, not making it more restrictive. Is there a danger? Well, a minor one. Because the user gets to choose, then if the OPL/GPL guys go crazy and make v2.0 have some clause that you most definitely don't want anyone to have (eg you can do whatever you want and we don't care at all) then users can use v2.0 and do whatever. I think this is a long shot. If the general consensus is that we remove the "or later" then I will do so. Someone else mentioned that you cannot use a license that doesn't exist. This is probably correct. What happens when OPL gets updated to v2.0? v1.0 may possibly be difficult to find. So suddenly without an "or later" you have no license. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7 47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
