[okfn-discuss] GNU GPL non-conformant with Open Definition?

[Joshua Gay]

The Open Definition 2.0 Section 2.2.5 Source states: "The license may
require modified works to be made available in a form preferred for further
modification."

However, it does not state that a license may require unmodified works to
be made available in a form preferred for further modifications.

But, this means that works licensed under any version of the GNU GPL, GNU
LGPL, and GNU AGPL  apparently do not conform with the definition of
"Open", as these licenses require users to make available the corresponding
source when distributing/conveying *unmodified* versions of a work.

Further, while the GPL defines "preferred modifiable form" as the source
code, it also requires you to distribute other things besides the source
code, such as build scripts and in some cases installation information
alongside the source code.

I suspect that most people would like to think of works licensed under the
GNU GPL, LGPL, and AGPL are"open," and that this definition was not meant
to define such works as "closed"/"not open."

If there is something I am missing, and I am wrong about my interpretation,
then I apologize ahead of time. If, on the other hand,  the definition was
written this way intentionally, then I recommend putting these licenses on
the non-conformant list and maybe even making special mention of this fact
somewhere.

Lastly -- and this is purely a matter of personal annoyance/opinion, and
not feedback of technical nature: I find it annoying that the Free Software
Definition is not linked to or referenced in the introduction section.
After all, isn't it kind of the primogenitor of all the other definitions
you link to? :-)

Best,
Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141011/d4a27386/attachment.html>