Thank you for this.
> On Nov 7, 2018, at 11:19 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > > The initial debate between RMS and the OSI founders was some confusing > nonsense over socialism vs. capitalism (in technical lingo as software > license language rather than politics). I was initially confused. I found > myself in the capitalist tribe at OSI, although my socialist parents would > have been ashamed of me for validating developers' and companies' profit > motives to support hackers. But I had a mortgage too, and I no longer worked > at a university to support myself. > > The FSF folks found more pleasure in the word "free," which scared many > companies then. GPL was their main license model, and OSI had to accept it. > Even if that meant squeezing and smushing the OSD language, GPL had to be > "open source," and so it was. > > Both OSI and FSF wanted to find other ways that could allow developers to > make money. The LGPL was an FSF compromise. The Mozilla license and Apache > license (first version), almost everyone except FSF could accept. Dual > licensing and other novelty license models were created. We at OSI accepted > them all (except for a few) and declared that all our licenses were for > "open" software that companies could use for free. > > By that time, Bruce Perens was in a feud with other members of the OSI board > and we couldn't rely on him to help us reword the OSD. We added OSD # 10 > without his help. > > The arguments today opining on various OSD provisions and the impacts of > "copyleft" and "server-side" licenses are no longer interesting to me. I was > pleased with that original OSI compromise about the essence of open source to > use the software; copy it; create derivatives; distribute them; and read the > source code. I even summarized those basic rules in the front cover art on my > 2004 book (although RMS didn't like my Freedom # 5). By allowing all that > shared software to be called "open source," and treating licenses as merely > an agreement between licensor and licensee, then basic open source freedoms > could be protected even while variety and experimentation were allowed in the > software industry. > > GPL copyleft was then for me merely a license condition which any copyright > owner could assert. Licensors also tried to assert side conditions about > derivative works, corresponding source, private use, neon-sign-like > attribution clauses, the obligations and responsibilities of licensors, etc., > which were acceptable to OSI "as long as the OSD allowed it." > > My own conclusion in the early 2000's was that the OSD was poorly drafted in > some important respects. It was vague and uncertain, and the "basic open > source freedoms" were being obscured. It appeared that the panoply of such > licenses was confusing our audience. People were complaining about license > incompatibility. Cacophony! License proliferation! Some licenses "went too > far...." > > Every one of these problems over the years has resulted in quibbling online > about the obscure OSD language for those mostly obscure licenses. It tires me. > > Instead, as long as the five basic freedoms on the cover of my book are > protected, software will be open source enough for me. That is why I have > proposed this common definition: > > “Open source software” means software actually distributed to the public > under software licenses that provide that every licensee is free to make > copies of the software or derivative works thereof, to distribute them > without payment of royalties or other consideration, and to access and use > the complete source code of the software. > > /Larry > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
