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

[Mike Chelen]

What wording here would need to change? For example:

2.2.5 Source
>
> The license may require modified works to be made available in a form
> preferred for further modification.
>

Change to:

The license may require works to be made available in a form preferred for
> further modification.
>

I'm not sure if this is too broad, but would it address this element of GPL
compatibility?

- Mike


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141012/2d99a3d1/attachment-0002.html>