From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 25 09:04:37 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1625916A4CE for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:04:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from papagena.rockefeller.edu (user-0cdfenm.cable.mindspring.com [24.215.186.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54EB943D1D for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:04:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: (qmail 1566 invoked by uid 1002); 25 Jan 2004 17:04:39 -0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:04:39 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Richard Schilling Message-ID: <20040125170439.GA1533@online.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040125130811.GE309@foghorn.rsmba.biz> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.23 i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:04:37 -0000 [probably OT even for -chat, but...] Richard Schilling wrote: > The [L]GPL license makes this the submission of changes mandatory, No, it does not. Please do your homework before posting such rubbish in public. What is mandatory is distributing source code if you redistribute your binary. Since you are not planning to allow redistribution, this is a non-issue. The GPL and LGPL emphatically do not require submission of changes, private or public, back to the original author. Private changes can remain in your hands, and you're required to give source code only to parties to whom you distribute a binary. > The problem with [L]GPL and BSD is that if someone does not turn in > their changes then the developer has no recourse to enforce the > requirment. That is because there is no such requirement. When there is a genuine GPL violation, there are legal recourses. Sending the original author your private modification is not a requirement of any licence I know of (and is probably not enforceable even if you required it). And your licence violates practically every other requirement of open source as commonly understood and as defined on www.opensource.org, starting with the very first (free redistribution). So please don't call it open source. [from another mail] > > See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. > > I read that very carefully. Please read it again, starting from the top. > I am trying to make it possible for people to earn a living as Open > Source developers. No, you're not. You're trying to hitch a free ride on the "open source" buzzword, without meeting its requirements. The world does not owe you a living. -- Rahul