[Bitpim-devel] BitPim license change

[Roger Binns]

With the 0.7 release of BitPim, the license will be changing to
the Open Source License.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.0.php

I have contacted all the copyright holders and they have all agreed.
If anyone can see any issues, please speak up now.

What brought this on was someone doing a BitPim0.62 for vx6000
that stretched some provisions of the Artistic License that
BitPim was under. That wouldn't have been too big a deal except
for two problems. One is that their "bug and portability fixes"
actually introduced new bugs, and that their version is indistinguishable
from the real BitPim (there is a one line change in the about box
only). I am the one that ends up with the emails and support
requests so this gets to be a big problem.

Roger

[Chris Cleeland]

Post by Roger Binns
With the 0.7 release of BitPim, the license will be changing to
the Open Source License.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.0.php
I have contacted all the copyright holders and they have all agreed.
If anyone can see any issues, please speak up now.
What brought this on was someone doing a BitPim0.62 for vx6000
that stretched some provisions of the Artistic License that
BitPim was under. That wouldn't have been too big a deal except
for two problems. One is that their "bug and portability fixes"
actually introduced new bugs,

How did this stretch the Artistic License?

Post by Roger Binns
and that their version is indistinguishable
from the real BitPim (there is a one line change in the about box
only). I am the one that ends up with the emails and support
requests so this gets to be a big problem.

How does the change to OSL mitigate future similar occurrences?

[Roger Binns]

Post by Chris Cleeland
How did this stretch the Artistic License?

See section 2:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

Now do you want to argue over wether supporting wallpapers,
phonebook and ringtones in 0.62 is a feature or bug/portability
fix? The individual concerned claimed them as bug fixes
and consequently what they distributed as "the standard version".
They also didn't publish their changes for the same reasons.

And they didn't even have the courtesy to tell anyone what they
were doing, or ask advice. That isn't required, but is general
good practise. So combine all these actions together with the
section 2 loopholes, and someone determined can make a real
mess.

Post by Chris Cleeland
How does the change to OSL mitigate future similar occurrences?

Section 6+3, and worst case section 4 (I could trademark the name
BitPim).

Roger