[tlug] RE: Tlug Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

[<burlingk@example.com>]

> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:40:22 +0900
> From: stephen@example.com
> Subject: [tlug] Open Source Licenses
> To: Tokyo Linux Users Group <tlug@example.com>
> Message-ID: <87lkmvpks9.fsf@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
<snip>
> OSL is up to 3.0 at this point.  It would be interesting to 
> see if OSL/AFL have gotten cruftier or cleaner over time (I 
> haven't done the comparison yet, myself).
 

I am looking over OSL 3 now.  I just came to paragraph 9.  They have
added in extra verbiage stating that if you distribute the code, you
must make "a reasonable effort" to gain explicit acceptance of the
license. [1]  Big change from the previous traditional, "If you use it,
you accept the license" type wording.

Beyond that, some of the wording has been clarified or expanded in order
to better define the intent of the license.  The only other real change
was adding section 16.  The original license said that using modified
versions of the license was not permitted.  It now says that it is
permitted as long as you don't claim that it is the same license, and as
long as you let OSI look it over before you declare it an Open Source
license.

That wording brings up another question though, if you write your own
license, then say it is Open Source, does OSI get agitated if you don't
run it past them first?

----
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php