[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold scripsit:
> >EXSLT.NET is subject to GOTDOTNET WORKSPACES COMMERCIAL DERIVATIVES
> >LICENSE -
>
> Has this license been approved or is it in the process of approval by
> the open source initiative? I am not a license lawyer, but at first
> glance, clause 6, which says patent rights don't extend to derivative
> works, seems like it might be a problem.
Thanks for spotting this. I don't speak for OSI, but as a member of
the license-discuss list, I've spent plenty of time dissecting
licenses. (I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.)
No way in Hell this would pass OSI. What the general permission to
make derivative works gives, clause 6 takes away. This license is
pseudo-open and pseudo-free. In fact, it's exactly the same lame-o
limitation that scuttled Sender ID in the IETF (google for details).
Check out the Academic Free License at
http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php for what such a license
ought to look like.
--
Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan
portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see cowan@ccil.org
it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan
epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com
at a block of wood make there an image of a cow,
is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus
|
