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

Mon Oct 13 15:46:24 UTC 2014

stef,

It is a known fact that the point behind the OD text was to *include* the
GPL, so the fact that the text seems problematic is *absolutely* an issue
of being out of line with the intention. There is no question about this.
There is no need to check about whether there's some special intention
behind the particular wording. *Nobody* who worked on the OD *intended* to
exclude the GPL's requirement that unmodified redistributions include the
modifiable source.

I still stand by what I said before: We *should* update this, but the the
current OD v2 does *not* exclude particular terms merely because they are
omitted. It does not say that the written list of acceptable and prohibited
clauses is a strictly complete list.

Cheers,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:45 AM, stef <s at ctrlc.hu> wrote:

> joshs concerns are quite interesting and seem plausible, is it possible to
> track who the author of said lines was and get his reasoning behind the
> text?
>
> [the metathread on process also quite interesting, but i think it kinda
> digressed from joshs original question, so i retrigger it]
>
> --
> otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141013/06dc6d63/attachment-0002.html>