Thoughts
Software licensing is such a mess. I had 700 characters of confusion going on here but I deleted them because I think I now get it. Maybe.
The problem is that there aren't hard and fast rules. Here's a quote from Stallman criticizing open source:
> some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.
Now, you can't understand this without the history but I don't understand the history.
Okay it's been another half an hour or something, and I understand more of the history. You gotta fricking download the binary file from the Watcom submission mailing list post.
There's two weird things going on here in my opinion. First, Stallman's referencing a license that is copy-pasted from the Apple Public Source License (with modification, but the clause he's talking about exists in the original). Second, the OSI disagrees with the Debian project, and they're normally on exactly the same page. Like the OSI open source definition is copy-pasted from the Debian definition.
I think what happened is that the OSI was just getting going and someone from Apple asked them to approve the Apple license and the OSI was like "woohoo Apple's on board" and then someone realized the Apple license prevented modifications and they asked Apple to change it and that license became the APSL-2 and the first one was un-approved. But in the meantime the Watcom one was approved automatically because it was the same as the Apple one and then it never got updated. But I'm guessing here. I haven't found the Apple discussion in the OSI mailing lists. Let me see.
Okay I found it. Apple is asking for it to be included, there is a lot of discussion of compelled distribution of private modification. OSI obviously approves it anyways. Debian does not.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2001-April/003151.html
Debian doesn't approve APSL-2 because of a forced-venue clause or something, not an issue with the updated modification clauses.
I *really* need to go to bed.