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

Sat Oct 11 18:09:01 UTC 2014

Josh,

For your reference, the explicit intention of the OD v2 was to make it
clear that all the specifications of GPL family were *included*. That you
have noticed some inadequacies in the wording simply highlights yet again
the problems with the process of creating a finalized draft and then just
announcing it as final instead of pushing for wider feedback.

Personally, I completely support changing the OD to assure that it fully
accepts all the GPL terms and also adding reference to the Free Software
definition in the intro.

Side note: I fully appreciate that Herb already acknowledged my recent
concerns and agreed about the idea of publishing a release-candidate for
comment before jumping to final. Just to add some perspective for those
following all this: the reason a release-candidate comment-period is so
critical isn't just to be strict about process. There's been an unfortunate
common reply to my concerns along the lines of "we discussed publicly for a
year, and anyone could participate." I see that point as inadequate. It's
not a question of whether anyone *could* participate, but a question of
whether everyone we'd want included *did* actually participate. If, at the
end of the year, we know there are lots of potentially interested and
useful people who were not involved, then we need to work to get their
thoughts. This is *not* about participation itself, it's about the fact
that when Josh comes along, he has important critiques.

I really hope we all embrace the idea of publishing release-candidates for
comment after drafting process for *everything* going forward. No excuses
about how people *could* have participated. Their last-minute comments
being excluded hurts everyone. It isn't about *their* interests
particularly, but the interests of the whole project.

I propose that we go through this, draft the 2.1 version of the OD,
consider all these critiques that have come up, and even then publish a
release-candidate of 2.1 before finalizing. It already stinks that we
couldn't include these concerns in v2 proper.

Best,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Joshua Gay <joshuagay at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141011/151110cf/attachment-0002.html>