- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:58:41 -0400
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: "licensing@mozilla.org" <licensing@mozilla.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Gervase Markham writes (for Mozilla): "Our opinion is that Option 3 does not satisfy requirement A), because it contains field-of-use restrictions." Requirement A is "A) The license must meet the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition." Out of curiosity, I looked at Option 3 [1] , the Open Source Definition [2] and the Free Software Definition [3], and didn't quite see how Option 3 had field-of-use restrictions. I may be missing it in the Free Software Definition but I'm not sure what parts it might be covered under, while field of use restrictions in the Open Source Definition seem to be defined by clause (6) of that document: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." I'm just not seeing what field of endeavor Option 3 would discriminate against. I'm not saying this is wrong, but rather am just asking for clarification. If someone is going to reconcile some rather divergent perspectives on the licensure issue, understanding what those perspectives are would seem to be in order, though I recognize that this may seem a tad idealistic to some. cheers David [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0143.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Received on Sunday, 3 April 2011 16:59:14 UTC