Frank Cusack <frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net> wrote:
> On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > 1) The OpenSource definition
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very
> > clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not
> > prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.
> >
> > 2) given the fact that the GPL is an aproved OSS licensse, it obviously
> > complies with the OSS definition.
> >
> > 3) as a result, any GPL interpretation that is based on the assumption
> > that a separate distribution would fix problems is wrong.
>
> I don't disagree with you, but 1&2 do not lead to 3. 1 does not even
> necessarily lead to 2.
>
> OSI/OSS is not definitive. A license is not open source because of
> its approval by OSI and it is not not-open source because of its
> absence in OSI. For licenses that are approved, it's still possible
> that OSI made a mistake (because licenses are complicated things
> after all).
Well, the GPL was marked as non OSI compliant some time ago. The GPL received
it's status of an OSI compliant license after the FSF send a note to
OpenSource.org that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it OSI
compliant. If you take this into account, my conclusions apply.
Unfortunately, the mail archives from the OSI go only back for two years, so
this is not easily provable.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
