Re: What is the "open web" ?

On 6/5/2013 9:02 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> 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."

How does the above language (which in any case is not in the Mozilla or 
Apache language) prevent sabotage by legal limitations such as patents?

>
> ***
>
> 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 14:04:17 UTC