Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > Because OSD #2 specifically forbids it: software whose source is not > available not Open Source by definition.
Sure, but... distinguo: The _licence_ can be reasonable declared to be open source. The software (at that point, to all appearances) is not. The point is that this is one of multiple showstoppers that can cause a work to not be open source even though an open source licence has been applied by a lawful stakeholder. Patent encumbrances (e.g., 'RAND' terms) are, in my view, another. Thus my point. The opting for a qualifying licence is a necessary but not sufficient condition. So is availability of suitable and usable source code. So is a lack of patent encumbrances (e.g. on 'RAND' terms). > Well, it's at least more debatable, because there is no clause like > #2 that relates to the absence of patent rights. There probably > doesn't exist source code against which *some* patent claim > can't be asserted, and whether it succeeds has more to do > with who can afford to pay their lawyers longer. Well, yes, indeed. That's the queasy-making aspect: IMO, it means that you might reasonably think today that codebase X is legitimately open source in your legal jurisdiction, but tomorrow someone pulls out a submarine patent (in your jurisdiction) and issues invoices, and suddenly codebase X has been rendered proprietary in your jurisdiction even while it remains open source over the border. A year later, a judge invalidates the patent or a new patent owner issues a royalty-free licence, and it's open source again. And meanwhile, someone asks you Was X _really_ open source in your country during the long period when the patent lurked but hadn't been disclosed?' So, you answer, 'Technically it wasn't, except we didn't know that yet, so we described X on the basis of what we knew.' All of that is deeply unfortunate, and has the sole advantage of being, as far I'm aware... er... reality. And at least any given patent eventually goes 'Poof', even if waiting for that reminds one of what John Kenneth Galbraith said about the problem of 'the long term'. > Latveria obviously doesn't have submarines, since Doomstadt > is the eighth city of the Siebenburg (Saxon Transylvania). Hah! Yes, quite so. > My confusion is rapidly waxing > For XML Schema's too taxing: > I'd use DTDs / If they had local trees -- > I think I best switch to RELAX NG. You're about to get another entry in http://linuxmafia.com/pub/humour/sigs-rickmoen.html, I'll have you know. -- Cheers, "I am a member of a civilization (IAAMOAC). Step back Rick Moen from anger. Study how awful our ancestors had it, yet r...@linuxmafia.com they struggled to get you here. Repay them by appreciating McQ! (4x80) the civilization you inherited." -- David Brin _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
