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

[Aaron Wolf]

I think it should say "… require all distribution of the work (either
original or modified)…" in order to precisely match GPL

However, I'm not sure the strictest reading of OD is actually right.
Although it enumerates specific allowances, it does NOT say that any
unmentioned terms automatically make a license non-open. The point is only
to explicitly clarify that certain terms ARE open and certain terms are
not. Any terms that ODv2 doesn't specify are thus a matterof judgement
about whether they fit basically. So, I think that ODv2, as is, works with
GPL already. I just think further clarity isn't bad.

Cheers,
Aaron

On Saturday, October 11, 2014, Mike Chelen <mike at opensci.info> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org');>
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>>
>

-- 
--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141011/1b1a81d0/attachment-0002.html>