- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 07:48:45 -0400
- To: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
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? > > Unless patents or DMCA-like legislation gets in the way, any software > for which source code is made available and a release from copyright > restrcitions is made under a open source licenses / free software > license, is actually open source software / free software. > > The goal of the GPL is that it is intended to protect freedoms of > software users from those situations where the author of the source > code puts it under a free license, but in spite of that action, the > software doesn't actually end up being free software.from the end > user's perspective. > > GPLv2 did this well for many years, but eventually some problem > mechanisms emerged that were not addressed by GPLv2. For example GPLv2 > fails to be incompatible with situations where the DMCA prevents > software changes. This is fixed in GPLv3. (GPLv3 might be doing a bit > of overkill there, but I'm not going to go into that discussion.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > FreedomHTML.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 11:48:56 UTC