Issue‎ > ‎Issue 02‎ > ‎


#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=OPen source-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=--=-=-]

echo-zine 02
The Open Source Definition
Version 1.9~

	The indented, italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source 
	Definition (OSD)and are not a part of the OSD.A plain version of the OSD without
	annotations can be found here.

	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. 

	2. Source Code
	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.

	3. Derived Works
	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.

	4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
	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

	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.

	5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
	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.

	6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
	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.
	7. Distribution of License
	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.

	8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
	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.

	9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
	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 

	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.
*sengaja tidak diartikan supaya tidak merubah arti sesungguhnya, harap maklum [echo staff]