Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.love...@openlogic.com> writes: > I am resending this, as I forgot to add one other outstanding > issue regarding the zlib and libpng licenses – that question is > added to the bottom of this email! Then: >Oh my. One more time with the attachment. My apologies!
See, my tactic of delaying handling this bears fruit! :-) Thanks, Jilayne. Will handle as soon as can (or Luis or someone will -- in any case, it's not dropped, just in the somewhat brimming queue.) -Karl > From: J Lovejoy <jilayne.love...@openlogic.com> > Date: Friday, June 1, 2012 3:17 PM > To: Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com>, > "license-discuss@opensource.org" <license-discuss@opensource.org>, > John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> > Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-le...@lists.spdx.org> > Subject: SPDX - OSI issues - revised > > > > > > > Hi Karl and John, > > > Thanks again for all the updates. I have finally gotten > around to going through each of your emails very thoroughly > and making appropriate updates to the SPDX License List. I > have yet to upload it yet, as I have a few more things to do > unrelated to OSI, but it should be up (v1.16) on Monday at the > latest. > > > In the meantime, I just put the outstanding questions here in > an email, since there were only three. Figured that would be > easier. I've cut and pasted the string from the previous > emails (in italics) and then my current comments/questions > begin with a ---> > > > Thanks again! > > > - Jilayne > > > > > > > > > Apple Public Source License 1.0 & Apple Public Source License > 1.1 > > > > Regarding Apple Public Source License 1.0 (APSL-1.0) you > ask: > > > > Was this ever OSI approved? Note at top of fedora > url says: This > > license is non-free. At one point, it could be found > at > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt, but > that link now > > redirects to APSL 2.0. A copy of the license text has > been taken > > from archive.org's October 01, 2007 revision. > > > > The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia > claims that > APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this > statement. > That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable > fuss at the > time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first > of the new > licenses with that property). > > > --> do I understand correctly that neither 1.0 nor 1.1 were > OSI approved? A little confused by email comments/string > > > > > Artistic License 1.0 > > > > Regarding the Artistic License 1.0, you have done some fine > detective > work, and you asked: > > > > OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded > licenses" > > category list. > > > > Also note that Perl link has 10 clause version of license, > whereas > > OSI link has 9 clause with note at top about additional > clause. for > > searching/templating reasons, these should probably be > listed as two > > different licenses. Suggest naming as follows: > > Artistic License 1.0 (Perl) // Artistic-Perl-1.0 > > Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0 > > > > thoughts? > > > Excellent idea, except maybe we should put the "(Perl)" before > the > version number, since "Perl" describes a flavor of the license > and that > flavor could conceivably happen to other versions, though we > hope not. > That would also match the proposed SPDX short name. Thus > > > Artistic License (Perl) 1.0 // Artistic-Perl-1.0 > Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0 > > > Would that work for you? > > > For now I've > renamed http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0 > to opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0, edited it to link > correctly to > the superseding version (Artistic-2.0), and to link to a new > page > opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0. > > > Now, independently of the above, there is a serious bug in the > Perl > clause, and while I understand why it was OSI-approved, I > think the OSI > approved its *intended* meaning rather than its textual > meaning. > > > This should really be a separate thread, but I want to at > least write it > down here now, so there's a record of it somewhere: > > > The OSI page above says: > > > | Some versions of the artistic license contain the > following clause: > | > | 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial > distribution is > | always permitted provided that the use of this Package > is > | embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make > this > | Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the > commercial > | distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a > distribution of > | this Package. > | > | With or without this clause, the license is approved by > OSI for > | certifying software as OSI Certified Open Source. > > > That's great, except s/commercial/proprietary/ :-(. What the > text > obviously means is "proprietary", and furthermore, if it were > to be > interpreted literally as "commercial", then it would (to my > mind) be > clearly not open source. > > > I'm not sure what to do about this now. I just wanted to > mention it. > Any review of old licenses, such as you have done, is bound to > turn up > issues like this. Thank goodness it's an issue with > Artistic-Perl-1.0 > and not with, say, GPL-2.0 :-). > > > > > --> in regards to adding a new license/version for Artistic > License (Perl) 1.0 – this is a good idea and your naming > suggestions are inline with the naming protocol for SPDX, so > that's all good. BUT one problem… the actual license on the > Perl site (http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html ) is not > the same as the one here > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0) --> the > OSI perl version is simply the Artistic License 1.0 verbatim > with the additional clause. However, the license on the Perl > site has other differences. I'm attaching a Word document > with a merge and compare between the OSI Artistic Perl and the > Perl site Artistic Perl licenses > > * anyone know what to do about this? I feel like the one on > the Perl site should be captured, but what about the OSI > variation? For the moment, I'm not adding the Artistic Perl > license to the SPDX License List until this is sorted out, > as I don't want to add one and then have to change it later. > > * There also appears to be a "Clarified Artistic License" > which is different yet again. That is on the SPDX license > list already (and assumed to NOT be OSI approved) > > > > GNU Library General Public License v2 > > > > > Was this ever OSI approved? > > > I don't know. I suspect the answer to that one would not > be so hard > to find, but I want to plough to the end of this > spreadsheet right now > and get these responses posted. I did a cursory search on > the OSI > site and didn't find any evidence of approval. Anyone > here know about > LGPL-2.0? > > > > The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU > Library > vs. Lesser Public License) are entirely editorial. I can > provide a list > of them for anyone who wants it. > > > --> so, is that a yes, it's OSI approved? > > > > Zlip/libpng license > > > OSI lists the "zlib/libpng" license as OSI approved here > - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib – this text is the same > as the actual zlib license, see > here: http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html. However, the libpng > license, while incorporation some of the same text as the zlib > license, has a different disclaimer and additional text, see > here: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt > As a result, SPDX lists these licenses separately, that is: zlib > License (OSI approved) http://spdx.org/licenses/Zlib and libpng > License (not OSI approved) http://spdx.org/licenses/Libpng > Yet, the libpng license text actually states that it is OSI > approved. > --> so, first question is: was the libpng license (separately or > specifically) OSI approved? If so, can we list it separately? > Either way, can we name the two licenses to avoid confusion? (see > old string re: this naming issue here > - http://old.nabble.com/FW%3A--png-mng-implement--zlib-libpng-license- > name-td24275146.html) > > > Attaching updated v1.16 spreadsheet (which will also be posted in > full zip format with associated .txt files on SPDX.org tomorrow > and html pages updates shortly thereafter). > > > It'd be great if we can get these last few niggly issues resolved > soon. Karl, John – let me know if a call might help facilitate or > anything for that matter!! > > > Thanks!! > > > Jilayne > > > > > > Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel > OpenLogic, Inc. > > jlove...@openlogic.com | 720 240 4545 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
