Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:48:49 -0700 From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Chiming in on IPF Message-ID: <3B1C0241.9020904@quack.kfu.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
For me, the litmus test is whether or not the license meets the OSI definition (www.opensource.org//docs/definition.html). At issue are points 3 and 4. ----- 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. ----- My interpretation is that the most Darren could do to remain compliant with the OSD and still restrict the forking of IPF is to insist that derived works not be called IPF and insist that derived works be distributed in the form of the original IPF source and a bunch of patch files. In denying the right to fork IPF, the license violates clause 3, and therefore in my mind it is no longer 'open source'. I won't get into the issue of past licenses on IPF and how they may or may not differ or whether the change may or may not be enforceable. But I think using the OSD as a minimal test for a license's acceptability in general is not a bad idea. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B1C0241.9020904>