What is open source?

Posted Nov 30, 2006 16:05 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I would note, first, that I think the license has noticeable oddities and problems in language and form (among other things, the logo-display terms are in a "Exhibit" and there is nothing in the License that says how the Exhibit applies). I also think that the biggest misfit with the OSD is with Clause 3 ("Must allow modifications and derived works"), though the OSD is unfortunately silent on whether that means you have to allow ANY modifications or can constrain the range of acceptable modifications, subject to the other terms of the license.

However, I would say that all three of your specific issues require stretching the OSD somewhat out of shape and ignoring the Rationale statements that accompany it.

Clause 5 is about discrimination in the license terms, not in the software's function and, in any case, the license terms don't make the software inaccessible to blind people (they require the notice, in specific size and placement, but don't ban spoken interfaces or providing the notice in other forms more accessible to the vision-challenged).

Clause 6 is arguably closer, but (a) "small screen devices" is not a "field of endeavor" in the sense used in the Rationale and (b) all the requirement says is that if you want to use the software in such a device, you need to use a big enough screen, which means it's NOT a restriction on the field of endeavor, but just on some specific implementation choices.

As to Clause 10, I don't see your basis for your claim that the license "prevents someone from making...[it into] a non-web application". The logo requirement could be met in most styles of non-web application. Even if you chose to interpret "direct them back to" as meaning "open in a web page", any GUI-style interface would be able to meet the requirement. However, I suspect a court would read that, and the "click on" more loosely.