[TAG] Compliments to you all.

[Jimmy O'Regan]

Rick Moen wrote:

>Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben at callahans.org):
>
>  
>
>>Despite having heard a talk on the various types of licensing at the
>>Linux Boot Camp (hi, Faber!), I only know the basics of that world.
>>Rick, or anyone knowledgeable - care to advise me?
>>    
>>
>
>Watcha want to know?
>
>  
>
>>I don't want to have the LG hanging out there without an Open Source
>>license (at the moment, we're not showing ourselves as adhering to
>>_any_ license, which is troubling), but other than the CC suggestion,
>>I have nothing to go on.
>>    
>>
>
>1.  If y'all are happy with the OPL, there's no reason why it cannot be
>used until doomsday and beyond.  I'm merely saying that the canonical
>URL at which that document has traditionally been available is likely to
>go 404 on us, at some point in the foreseeable future.
>  
>
Grab a copy?

>2.  I would classify OPL 1.0 as follows:
>
>Copyleft.  (CC calls this attribute "ShareAlike".)
>Attribution required.
>Derivatives allowed.
>
>It strikes me as meeting OSD and DFSG guidelines, and thus by those
>criteria could be properly classed as an open-source / free-software
>licence.  If you were to bring it up for comment on debian-legal, a
>bunch of the regulars would probably grouse about some of the notice 
>requirements in clause 2, but debian-legal has gotten a bit cranky and
>peculiar over the past year.  (My opinion; yours for a small fee and
>disclaimer of reverse-engineering rights.)
>  
>
GPL compatibility seems to now be a requirement for DFSG compliance, at 
least in the minds of a few who post there.