[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: MS filters
From:       Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad () users ! sourceforge ! net>
Date:       2008-03-13 17:10:54
Message-ID: frbn6u$6ag$1 () ger ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

(Please keep this on kde-licensing.)

Cyrille Berger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Google[1] turns up way to many results (note
>> particularly the ones from Red Hat's Truth Happens /and the SFLC[2]/)
>> implying OSP is not compatible with GPL, which means we should not
>> accept contributions from anyone that has looked at these documents.
> 
> From [2], "The OSP cannot be relied upon by GPL developers for their 
> implementations not because its provisions conflict with GPL, but because it 
> does not provide the freedom that the GPL requires." and  " It is true that a 
> broad audience of developers could implement the specifications, but they 
> would be unable to be certain that implementations based on the latest 
> versions of the specifications would be safe from attack."
> 
> The interesting question is "do code written using the ___current___ 
> specification will be allways safe and protected ?".

That is indeed the interesting question, and as I read the SFLC's 
interpretation, the answer is "no" (see the paragraph "The OSP Covers 
Specifications, Not Code"). Further, by my own reading I must agree with 
them.

The important claim here is that the OSP only applies to "an 
implementation" (whatever that is), and only if it "conforms to a 
Covered Specification" (both of these phrases should be throwing up 
*huge* red flags). So, let's say I write a GPL "implementation". The GPL 
allows anyone else to come along and copy any parts of that code to 
their own GPL'd code. But because their code isn't "an implementation" 
that "conforms to a Covered Specification", OSP does not apply to them, 
which means I cannot fulfill the terms of the GPL (especially if we're 
talking about GPLv3).

Honestly, I'd be paranoid using OSP in a *proprietary* application, with 
the wording it has. Particularly when it's not clear what, if any, legal 
value a "personal promise" has to being with.

At any rate, the fact that the SFLC states that the OSP is incompatible 
with GPL, and recommends avoiding OSP, ought to be worth something.

-- 
Matthew
And the SFLC said to the Hacker, "Behold, I give to you all the codes of 
the GPL'd software to snarf from.  But thou shalt not not partake of the 
fruit that cometh from the Beast, or thou shalt surely be sued." But the 
Beast, being more crafty than the other Money Guzzler corporations, said 
to the Hacker, "thou shalt surely not be sued."  And when the Hacker saw 
that the fruit of the Beast would make it easier to write code, and that 
it was desirable for "interoperability", he took it and ate...

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]