Subject: Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 07:26:03 -0700

begin Rob Myers quotation:

> It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume
> acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general
> offer of distribution on this basis.

I'm sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean.  Perhaps you could give an
example.

> It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and
> "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing.

I cannot see that this is the case at all, since the OSD is not a
licence itself.  It is an attempt to specify and explain the sorts of
traits the OSI requires in licences it will approve.

> Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door
> for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous
> organizations will eagerly exploit.

This is the one that really puzzled me.  What do you mean by a "back
door", and "closing off"? 

But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the
gun:  My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right
to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be
entirely untrue.  Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. 

-- 
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and 
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window 
and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to 
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3