Richard Fontana <[email protected]> writes: >On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:50:53PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: >> Richard Fontana <[email protected]> writes: >> >Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these >> >licenses took place in (I believe) 2008. I've been meaning to do that >> >anyway, and to publish the rationale. In at least one case (OCLC-2.0) >> >at least one issue involved restrictions on commercial use. >> >> I don't see those restrictions in OCLC-2.0, but maybe I'm missing >> something. If you happen to remember the clause, please post here; no >> worries if you don't have time to dig it up though. > >I don't have my records on this one at hand, but as someone else >noted, it says: > > The Program must be distributed without charge beyond the costs of > physically transferring the files to the recipient. > >and > > Distributions of Combined Works are subject to the terms of this > license and must be made at no charge to the recipient beyond the > costs of physically transferring the files to recipient. > >The OSD may not be fully clear on this, but I take it as fundamental >that FOSS licenses should not place any restriction on prices charged >for distribution, other than with respect to source code that is >required to be provided when distributing binaries. > >In addition, this provision: > > Any patent obtained by any party covering the Program or any part > thereof must include a provision providing for the free, perpetual > and unrestricted commercial and noncommercial use by any third > party. > >is probably best seen as absurd, meaningless, or fatally unclear. > >Also, > > If you learn of a third party claim or other restriction relating to > a Program you have already distributed you shall promptly redo your > Program to address the issue > >A purported requirement to "redo" software you've already distributed >seems unreasonably burdensome for an open source license (however well >intended it might have been in this particular case).
These are indeed real concerns. Personally, I'm just going to pretend they don't exist for now, so I can get other work done first, but it's good to have these issues highlighted. (And I don't mean others should pretend the concerns don't exist -- I allocate only my own time :-) .) Thanks for spelling it out. The patent bit I agree is unclear, but probably has no bearing on FOSS-ness. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
