Open Source license discussion mailing list:
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> The Common Public License is the same as the IBM Public License with the
> name "IBM" removed. IBM submitted that license directly to OSI for approval
> because it helped solve a problem that people were having -- specifically,
> the ability to use the IBM Public License without having to apply for
> modification merely to replace IBM's name with the name of the new licensor.
> We encourage other licensors to submit such "template" licenses wherever
> possible.
After just now reading the SISSL at the OpenSource.org website, I was
wondering whether there were another MPL-derivative license when I
decided to check the mailing list. Kudos to IBM for addressing the need
for such "template" licenses!
I wonder, though, if the license could be made even more "common" by
dropping the "Agreement Steward" clause of Version 0.5:
> The Agreement Steward reserves the right to publish new versions (including
>revisions) of this Agreement from time to time. No one other than the Agreement
>Steward has the right to modify this Agreement. IBM is the initial Agreement Steward.
>IBM may assign the responsibility to serve as the Agreement Steward to a suitable
>separate entity. Each new version of the Agreement will be given a distinguishing
>version number. The Program (including Contributions) may always be distributed
>subject to the version of the Agreement under which it was received. In addition,
>after a new version of the Agreement is published, Contributor may elect to
>distribute the Program (including its Contributions) under the new version.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license-cpl.html
As a "Contributor", whether initial or subsequent, I would prefer that I
retain control over which version of the license is used. This thought
hit me most strongly when AOL assumed control over Netscape:
> 6.1. New Versions.
> Netscape Communications Corporation (''Netscape'') may publish revised and/or new
>versions of the License from time to time. Each version will be given a
>distinguishing version number.
>
> 6.2. Effect of New Versions.
> Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You
>may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to
>use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License
>published by Netscape. No one other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms
>applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.html
The argument in favor of an Agreement Steward is diminished by noting
that Contributors can always choose to explicitly re-release their work
under a new license or version of a license by acting unanimously.
Failing unanimous consent, the work can still be released under multiple
versions of the license simultaneously by noting that the CPL is non-viral:
> Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate
>modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own
>license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
Regardless of my reservations about placing my trust in the hands of an
Agreement Steward, I believe that the CPL may be the best evolution of
Open Source licenses out to date that achieves my objectives. I intend
to license all of my Open Source code
(http://www.orbs.com/software/open/) using the CPL. Once again, kudos
to IBM!
--
David Wallace Croft
(214) 533-3047 cell
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~croft
