Re: What is the "open web" ?

Jeff Jaffe:
> On 6/5/2013 7:42 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On 6/5/13, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>> EME, for example, might not be implementable in GPLv3.  But I wasn't
>>> aware that it was not implementable in other open source licenses such
>>> as Apache or MPL (or even GPLv2 for that matter).  What am I missing?
>> The distinction between an implementation coming with a license
>> document that is generally accepted as an open source license, and the
>> distribution terms as a whole (as arising from combination of that
>> legal document with other relevant realities of the legal system in a
>> given jurisdiction, such as whether relevant patent claims exist for
>> which no free license is available, whether there are restrictions
>> arising from the DMCA or similar legislation) complying with the open
>> source definition [1] or the Free Software definition [2] (the two are
>> equivalent for most practical purposes, including the current
>> discussion).
>> [1] http://opensource.org/osd.
>> [2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> I'm still confused.
>
> Are you saying that the open source definition can provide limitations
> on MPL and Apache that are not inherent in the MPL or Apache licenses?

The "distribution terms as a whole" as Norbert correctly writes can
include legal limitations which come from outside both the Open Source
Definition (http://opensource.org/osd) and the license itself.

This might be legal. It might in some extreme cases even be intended by
the author of the license or the author of the software using the license.

But an Open Source license should not be sabotaged by other legal
limitations (NDAs, patents, etc.). That should be pretty obvious from
reading the Open Source Definition (an "annotated" version also exists,
which includes "rationales": http://opensource.org/osd-annotated):

"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is
not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means
of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction
cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source
code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the
program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator
are not allowed."

***

Take the MIT license as an example
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

That is one of the shortest, most "liberal" licenses one can find. But
when a company uses it to deliver source code to a customer or client
while at the same time preventing the disclosure of the source code to
others, then at least the spirit of Open Source is broken. In such a
case it is not the Open Source license which is dominating the legal
situation but the other limitations.

The issue here seems to be if it is ok to create a "standard" knowing
that there are conditions/limitations which make it impossible for an
"Open Source" project to distribute the source code. Again: that first
of all is not a legal issue, but it might be one, for example if the
problems created for Open Source projects are used in practice by a
vendor or vendors of proprietary software against Open Source alternatives.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 13:19:12 UTC