Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.love...@openlogic.com> writes:
>Martin - you read my mind, as I was just about to send an update of the
>outstanding OSI-SPDX License List issues.  I'm copying Karl Fogel, John
>Cowan, as they are on the original string helping with these issues, as
>well as the "license-discuss" list for OSI.

I'm following this, but just to be up front: I'm mostly doing other
stuff at OSI, now that Luis Villa chairs the license working group.
Luis is more qualified to handle these issues than I was anyway!  Luis
is of course also volunteering his time, so this isn't meant as pressure
on him -- I just wanted to set expectations accurately about where
responses would come from.

Where I can help clarify any of the issues (for example, in my responses
quoted below) I'll be happy to do so of course.


>Complete list (combining yours and mine) of outstanding issues as follows,
>with past commentary and questions indicated with"-->"
>1)  Apple Public Source License 1.0 & Apple Public Source License 1.1
>> 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
>> > time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first of the
>> > 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, can someone from OSI clarify?
>2) Artistic License 1.0
>  > OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded licenses"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
>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 problemŠ 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)
>3) 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
>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?
>4) 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 incorporating 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 -
>5) Jabber Open Source License v1.0 ­ when going through the FSF list, we
>decided to add and in doing so noticed the archived text here
>(http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf) is not the same as the OSI has
>on their site (it was OSI approved).  We decided because it's an old
>license to hold off and not add to list yet - and resolve with OSI (with
>goal of having on list b/c it was OSI approved and we endeavored to have
>all OSI licenses on SPDX list, even if old). license text also can be
>found at: http://code.google.com/p/jabber-net/wiki/FAQ_License
>--> what to do about this?
>5) adding missing OSI-approved licenses to SPDX License List: he MITRE
>Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License) and Reciprocal
>Public License, version 1.1
>--> yes, we should add those; will bring it up on call this morning (in a
>few minutes...)
>6) missing short identifiers on OSI website or in OSI urls - I have noted
>some where the url did not have the short identifier in the spreadsheet
>version of the SPDX-LL, Martin - I can help you with that, if it's not
>I'd love to start getting all of these resolved - OSI folks, please let me
>know what I can do to facilitate, help, etc.!!
>On 2/14/13 10:00 AM, "Martin Michlmayr" <t...@hp.com> wrote:
>>I just went through the list of OSI Superseded and Retired Licenses at
>>and updated them to use SPDX identifiers.
>>I noticed that a few OSI approved (but superseded/retired) licenses
>>are not on the SPDX list:
>> - Jabber Open Source License
>>   http://opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl
>>   I saw that there has been some discussion on this and needs action
>>from OSI:
>>   http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2012-November/000713.html
>>   I'll try to find out more in OSI's archives.
>> - The MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License)
>>   http://opensource.org/licenses/mitrepl
>> - Reciprocal Public License, version 1.1
>>   http://opensource.org/licenses/rpl1.1
>>   You have version 1.5 but not 1.1.
>>Can you consider the last two for inclusion in the SPDX list?  Once
>>you assign an SPDX identifier, I can update the OSI page.
>>All licenses on the OSI site (except those mentioned above) should use
>>SPDX identifiers in their URLs now as well as in the title.  If you
>>notice any where the SPDX identifier is missing, let me know and I'll
>>fix it.
>>I'm aware that the SPDX list contains some OSI-approved licenses that
>>are not on the OSI web site (e.g. AFL-1.x, AFL-2.x, OSL-2.0).  I'll
>>work on resolving that next.
>>Martin Michlmayr
>>Open Source Program Office, Hewlett-Packard
>>Spdx-legal mailing list
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to