Re: [DotGNU]DCMA devils - not under the OSD.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

John wrote:
> 
> Of course then we'd run afoul of the Open Source Definition? We'd be
> creating a license which discriminates against a person or persons.
> Under the law a corporation is considered a "virtual person", so it
> logically follows that we cannot create a license which discriminates
> against Microsoft.
> 

Agreed...

Frankly, I don't care if they use our spec.  If microsoft ends up
creating a closed source version of dotGNU, hey - I guess that validates
our work just as much as our work validates some of theirs.  The door
swings both ways.

The only thing that I want to ensure is that they can't use our own work
(outside of the spec) against us.  All specs should be open for
anything.  All code, however, is a creation that should be held closely
to the intentions of the original author.  That's why the GNU GPL is so
damned great.  However, if they want to put the resources into doing
this - hey, go ahead.  But they're going to have to make an investment. 
I won't make it for them.


> Encrypting our data stream or programs would run counter to a different
> clause of the OSD dealing with obvuscation of property. If obscured, not
> Open Source.
> 

I think that, from the privacy perspective, most people wouldn't want
their data open source in the first place.  Now, as far as having
encryption software in open source/free software products - I don't
think that that violates the OSD in any significant way (otherwise, why
does a lot of open source software use encryption?)

Now, this may not fit perfectly with the pure hacker ethic... but that's
another issue altogether.

        -Barry