Subject: Re: compatibility and the OSD
From: Bob Scheifler <Bob.Scheifler@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:36:21 -0400

> OSD#3 says "The license must allow modifications and derived works."
> It doesn't say "The license must allow some modifications and derived
> works."  Neither does it say "The license must allow all modifications
> and derived works."  We, however, behave as if it says the latter, not
> the former.  Any reason why we shouldn't?

One more question from me, and then I'm done. Back in June,
I asked if the word "restrict" in OSD#6 should be interpreted narrowly
to mean "completely preclude". Meaning, it's (definitionally) acceptable
for the license to impose arbitrarily onerous terms on just a single field
of endeavor. You answered in the affirmative. I took a logical consequence
of that to be that such restrictions could, directly or indirectly, result
in non-trivial restrictions on what derivative works could be distributed.
The meaning of OSD#3 that's being given, as I understand it, is that
the license must allow distribution of (almost) all derivative works.
Can you help me understand how those two seemingly conflicting statements
are reconciled?

- Bob