Quoting Jim Jagielski ([email protected]): > But that's not the point... the point is that if we are looking > at adjusting the OSD, or acceptance/validation of a license, based > on whether or not it addresses patents, then why aren't we also > worried about such issues as the export control, etc...
One possible answer is that OSI merely examines licences to see if _they_ are suitable for open source, and has neither the remit nor the capability of examining and judging all the surrounding circumstances of software deployments. I'm sure other answers are also possible, but I currently don't have time to deal with that. > I see no difference between the statements "We can't approve this > because it doesn't address patents" and "We can't approve this > because it doesn't address the US export laws." Please note that I personally articulated no such position. All I said that was even vaguely in that direction was that I suggested OSI ask CC to consider dropping the patent waiver from CCO clause 4a, and that I think we all agree that modern open source licences really ought to address patent issues in some way (and that the good ones do). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
