OPEN SOURCE
::
Introduction
Open source doesn't just mean access to the
source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the
following criteria:
::
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale:
By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate
the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few
short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure
for cooperators to defect.
The program must include source code, and must
allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a
product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction
cost–preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code
must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as
the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Rationale:
We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs
without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require
that modification be made easy.
The license must allow modifications and
derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.
Rationale:
The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer
review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people
need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
The license may restrict source-code from being
distributed in modified form only if the license allows the
distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works
to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Rationale:
Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right
to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and
maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support
and protect their reputations.
Accordingly, an open-source license must
guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be
distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial"
changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.
The license must not discriminate against any
person or group of persons.
Rationale:
In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of
persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources.
Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the
process.
Some countries, including the United States,
have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant
license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they
are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions
itself.
The license must not restrict anyone from
making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may
not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for
genetic research.
Rationale:
The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent
open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our
community, not feel excluded from it.
The rights attached to the program must apply
to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
additional license by those parties.
Rationale:
This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means
such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.
The rights attached to the program must not
depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the
program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the
terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the
original software distribution.
Rationale:
This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.
The license must not place restrictions on
other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For
example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale:
Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices
about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this
requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it
forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.
::
10. License
Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated
on any individual technology or style of interface.
Rationale:
This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit
gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and
licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with
important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM
anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use.
Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of
the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support
click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used
portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support
popup dialogues. |
