- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 5 Jun 2013 16:52:56 +0200
- To: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: "Norbert Bollow" <nb@bollow.ch>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Jeff Jaffe: >> 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? The language by itself does not and can not do that. But depending on the circumstances using certain trademarks owned by the Open Source Initiative might not be legal (http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines). And those who claim to be "Open Source" without making the source code available might violate other laws - this depends on the precise circumstances. But first of all those aware of the issues we are discussing here can decide what they do. They can decide not to help such sabotage. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 05:47:22 UTC