Adaptive Public License Re: License Committee Report v2
On Apr 14, 2004, at 11:26 PM, Russell Nelson wrote: Unfortunately, even after two tries there have been insufficient comments on the Adaptive Public License. Maybe the third's the charm? Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305: bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html So, I'm curious what the OSI position is on model licenses like this. Does having a semi-modular license like this actually simplify the task of OSI approval? Or is it easier to let people modify their own licenses as they see fit? I think the reason there's few opinions is that it is so darn complicated (even by Open Source standards!). The most complicated part is that I can't tell whether the license terms are *always* fixed for a given Initial Work. Could the author perhaps clarify that? It also might help if the author could summarize: - which clauses are relevant to OSI certification - which clauses are different from existing OSI licenses - the patent philosophy (which I couldn't parse) -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. etc. FWIW, here's some of what I see as the most relevant sections, but the list isn't exhaustive. 1.7. INDEPENDENT MODULE means a separate module of software and/or data that is not a derivative work of or copied from the Licensed Work or any portion thereof. In addition, a module does not qualify as an Independent Module but instead forms part of the Licensed Work if the module: (a) is embedded in the Licensed Work; (b) is included by reference in the Licensed Work other than by a function call or a class reference; or (c) must be included or contained, in whole or in part, within a file directory or subdirectory actually containing files making up the Licensed Work. 1.18. SUBSEQUENT WORK means a work that has resulted or arises from changes to and/or additions to: (a) the Initial Work; (b) any other Subsequent Work; or (c) to any combination of the Initial Work and any such other Subsequent Work; where such changes and/or additions originate from a Subsequent Contributor. A Subsequent Work will originate from a Subsequent Contributor if the Subsequent Work was a result of efforts by such Subsequent Contributor (or anyone acting on such Subsequent Contributor's behalf, such as, a contractor or other entity that is engaged by or under the direction of the Subsequent Contributor). For greater certainty, a Subsequent Work expressly excludes and shall not capture within its meaning any Independent Module. 3.6. INDEPENDENT MODULES. This License shall not apply to Independent Modules of any Initial Contributor, Subsequent Contributor, Distributor or any Recipient, and such Independent Modules may be licensed or made available under one or more separate license agreements. 3.7. LARGER WORKS. Any Distributor or Recipient may create or contribute to a Larger Work by combining any of the Licensed Work with other code not governed by the terms of this License, and may distribute the Larger Work as one or more products. However, in any such case, Distributor or Recipient (as the case may be) must make sure that the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Licensed Work portion of the Larger Work. (b) The Initial Contributor may at any time introduce requirements or add to or change earlier requirements (in each case, the EARLIER DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) for documenting changes resulting in Subsequent Works by revising Part 1 of each copy of the Supplement File distributed by the Initial Contributor with future copies of the Licensed Work so that Part 1 then contains new requirements (the NEW DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) for documenting such changes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: License Committee Report
For the record, I may have inadvertently submitted my comments and recommendation for approval of the OSL/AFL version 2.1 only to Larry offlist. Sorry. -Rod -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson Date: 4/14/04 5:47 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: License Committee Report I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljjm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Aggreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee Report
Hi Russell. I am still hoping to get approval for the Adaptive Public License. I have attached our follow-up from the last License Committee Report. --Carmen Leeming Carmen Leeming writes: Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure that the license had entered the submission process, and received a reply indicating that it was received and was currently under review. I wrote again in November and never heard back. Sorry, your license fell through the cracks. I have no automated system for tracking license approvals. On a quick reading, I don't see any problem with it. May I suggest that the CUA Public License use a particular form of the Adaptive Public License instead? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 Russell Nelson wrote: I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. The board voted on Thursday afternoon to accept the committee's recommendations. Thanks to everyone who commented on various licenses. In particular, I want to single out (in no particular order) John Cowen, Ernie Prabhakar, Larry Rosen, Brian Behlendorf and Rod Dixon for extra thanks for their years of active participation. Hrm. Can you really single out five people? Wouldn't you have to pentuple them out? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. The only serious concern that I can see is that the license requires the recipient to indemnify the Government of the United States against third party lawsuits. I disagree. I raised two potentially problems that I saw with the license where it had vageness issues that could cause it to not meet the OSD. See: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7720:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm I think the mere aggregation problem I raised is probably the clearest of the issues. I don't think either of these issues are by intent. I think they're on accident and some minor modifications could fix them. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.1.txt Comments: ongoing as of this writing. Recommend: more discussion. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On 02/17/04:07/2, Russell Nelson wrote: This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same thing and avoids a phony formality. Title: Fair License Submission: Original: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7623:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Revised: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7623:200401:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Comments: none Recommend: remanding. Thanks for the report and the information about utilization. I've sent the remanded version to license-approval, and I've included it in this message as well. ---LICENSE--- Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument. DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. [2004, Fair License; rhid.com/fair] ---LICENSE--- Regards, James William Pye pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License Committee report
Just to precede my statements with a warning that they are as it seems to me. I am not a lawyer, so my opinions could use any [dis|]qualifications. On 02/17/04:07/2, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed source code to inform his users (i.e. at runtime or in documentation) about the existence of the Fair License? Yes, but the choice of method is ultimately left to the author and later forwarded to the user. So not specifically at runtime or in documentation. I had concerns with that wording. I felt that 'notify' was a fine term to help enforce a goal of Due Credit(attribution). Although, my purpose was not so much as to require a user to force the instrument in another user's face, but rather to keep the creator of a derivative work from hiding the instrument to obfuscate the origins of the original works to help his/her profits. Of course, intention doesn't quite always map to effect, so I plan to give this more thought in the future. Another concern would be from the other side. For instance, a litigious developer that claims works based on his/her works did not provide a proper method of instrument notification. The license does not specify the method of instrument notification, so I think that leaving that ambiguity *might* imply that the method of notification should be similarly conspicuous to the method that the author implemented in his/her original works. Well, I think that would be the safest way for the user. --- I was thinking about this while I was writing this response, perhaps something along the lines of: ...any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument by a method that is leastwise conspicuous as the method implemented within the original works... I think such an addition may help clarity, but is probably unnecessary from both views, and potentially harmful in a case where an odd developer deems it necessary to smother his users with copyright/license notifications. Such a case would be more like advertising than mere notification. --- Another thing I don't understand is if the let's not proliferate substantially similar licenses reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair License. I was unsure of this myself. I think the main distinction between my license and most open source licenses is that most open source license specify the license as covering source, source code or distribution, which I felt may be too specific for my some of my usage. 'Works' seems more appropriate to me; although, I'm not sure if it would make a significant difference if it were ever brought under serious scrutiny. Regards, James William Pye pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License Committee report
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some modifications, but they do it at redistribution time, not at use time. Fundamentally, the author is trying to use licensing to substitute for trademark law. Title: Open Test License v1.1 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7537:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Comments: Larry Rosen: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7541:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Rod Dixon: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7545:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Recommend: disapproval. Thank you for reviewing my license submission. The license submission instructions indicate that OSI will work with [submittors] to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. Could you please let me know how that problem resolution process works? Should I make modifications in hope to change your opinion and resubmit the license? Or is there a better way? I don't speak for the OSI. However, the way to resolve the problems is to consider the issues raised on the mailing list, and adjust the license accordingly. As can be seen form the comments, the problem is clause 3: 3. Publication of results from standardized tests contained within this software (TESTNAME, TESTNAME) must either strictly adhere to the execution rules for such tests or be accompanied by explicit prior written permission of OWNER. Earlier, you said, about that clause: The above is not meant to restrict the ways to use copies or the types of derivative works. It is meant to restrict only how test results are _named_. If a user renames a standard test or invents her own new test, she can publish whatever she wants, regardless of standardized test rules. But that is not what the clause says. The clause says that you can't publish test results except under certain restrictions. That is a condition on use of the software. Please note that OSI certified licenses already have similar (but not generic enough) clauses! See, for example, Artistic License and Open Group Test Suite license. Both require users to rename standardized tests if standardized tests are modified. The restrictions in those licenses are restrictions on distribution, not use. They state that if you distribute a modified version of the package, you must change certain standard names. They do not say anything about publishing test results, or about how you use the software in general. You are free to use modified versions of the standard executables under the same name if you choose, including publishing anything you like about them; you are just not free to redistribute them under the same name. The distinction between distribution and use is important. A license based on copyright can't restrict the use of the software. It can only restrict copying of the software. Specifically, I would like to adjust the license so that there is no perception that some uses of software are restricted. I am not sure I understand the modification restriction at redistribution time loophole you refer to above, but would be happy to use that if needed (note that the submitted license does not restrict modifications of software at all!). I think that you will need to remove any restrictions on the use of the software. That means no restrictions on publishing test results. I should add that I understand why you want the restrictions. But there are many things which people want which do not fall under the actions permitted by open source. Please advise what my post-disapproval options are. Basically, to fix the problems in the license, and resubmit it. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report - regarding NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
I think the NASA Open Source Agreement is worthy of OSI's approval - - with revision, but it also raises issues worthy of discussion and, perhaps, adjustment to the OSD since the internationalization of intellectual property law will likely raise similar open source licensing issues for other governments. Regarding the issue concerning whether NASA may license software it cannot copyright in the U.S., the answer is yes, notwithstanding that significant harm to the conception of public domain for digital works is likely to follow. More generally, there may be good reason to add an article to the OSD regarding government open source licensing. Since it might be prudent to encourage open source licensing by governments for a number of reasons, OSI may want to consider under what conditions that this may be done. For instance, government bodies could be permitted/required to add a clause to the license safeguarding public domain rights where applicable. Further, it may be worth noting that government agencies like NASA could be encouraged to seek out open source developers when developing software rather than outsource development strictly to non-open source developers, which means the software is neither public domain (a government contractor may assert copyright), nor open source. With regard to the NASA license, I have three points. [1] The license contains an ambitious definition of display under section 1, which, effectively, imposes a restriction on the use of the software that I doubt is consistent with the spirit of a number of articles of the OSD. This definition may need revision to be more consistent with traditional Copyright law conceptions of display of a computer program. The user registration requirement/request line at the beginning of the license seems unclear as to purpose and, therefore, it is difficult to determine whether it is in compliance with article 7 of the OSD. Why is the government collecting user names, and is this part of the license intended to reach those licensees/sublicensees receiving the work as part of a redistribution? I do not view section 3.F of the license as answering my question since it is not clear why tracking registrations is needed either. [2] Regarding section 3.J, in all fairness, open source licenses used to distribute online software initially created by the U.S. government ought to carry a provision clearly indicating whether the export license from the Commerce department has been obtained and/or whether such a license is required. Notably, NASA IS ostensibly exporting the software since the open source license is not necessary, if the program is distributed within the United States or to U.S. citizens. Section 3.J should be revised. [3] Section 5.F should also be posted on NASA's website since the designated representative listed on any particular license in the hands of a licensee is likely to be outdated long before the license terminates. - Rod Rod Dixon Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org : -- : : There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright : software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed : in the United States. : : The only serious concern that I can see is that the license requires : the recipient to indemnify the Government of the United States against : third party lawsuits. : : Title: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1 : Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm : License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.1.txt : Comments: ongoing as of this writing. : Recommend: more discussion. : : -- : --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python : Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like : 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. : Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report - regarding NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Regarding the issue concerning whether NASA may license software it cannot copyright in the U.S., the answer is yes, notwithstanding that significant harm to the conception of public domain for digital works is likely to follow. And if there's anything actually useful in what they release, they should expect U.S. developers to acquire under PD, derive, and sublicense, thereby avoiding the NOSA requirements altogether. But sure, go ahead and approve it. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
My license does not appear on your list: Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure that the license had entered the submission process, and received a reply indicating that it was received and was currently under review. I wrote again in November and never heard back. Can anyone give me an update and let me know if it is still under consideration? Thank you, Carmen Leeming -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
Zooko O'Whielacronx writes: So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the (ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar licenses, and is therefore loathe to approve the Simple Permissive License. Finally, it seems that brevity in a license is not valued, or else that the value of brevity is outside the scope of the approval process. Not in-and-of itself, particularly when you're talking about a license which is well understood like the MIT license. Another thing I don't understand is if the let's not proliferate substantially similar licenses reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair License. What is it substantially similar to? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
Carmen Leeming writes: Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure that the license had entered the submission process, and received a reply indicating that it was received and was currently under review. I wrote again in November and never heard back. Sorry, your license fell through the cracks. I have no automated system for tracking license approvals. On a quick reading, I don't see any problem with it. May I suggest that the CUA Public License use a particular form of the Adaptive Public License instead? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same thing and avoids a phony formality. Title: Fair License Submission: Original: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7623:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Revised: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7623:200401:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Comments: none Recommend: remanding. ... This license is intended to have the same legal effect as the MIT license, only be simpler to read. Thanks, but that doesn't make it an improvement. We will approve it if the author simply insists, but we officially discourage the proliferation of substantially similar licenses. Title: Simple Permissive License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7654:200402:ponaihiojnjdnagclgek License: http://zooko.com/simple_permissive_license.html Comments: Ian Lance Taylor: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7656:200402:ponaihiojnjdnagclgek Recommend: disapproval. So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the (ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar licenses, and is therefore loathe to approve the Simple Permissive License. Finally, it seems that brevity in a license is not valued, or else that the value of brevity is outside the scope of the approval process. One thing I don't understand is if the Fair License would satisfy the goals of the Simple Permissive License while being even shorter. Personally, I'm a bit uncertain about the Fair License, perhaps because I have no legal training and I am already familiar with the MIT (-original) license. Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed source code to inform his users (i.e. at runtime or in documentation) about the existence of the Fair License? Another thing I don't understand is if the let's not proliferate substantially similar licenses reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair License. I will not presume to insist that OSI approve the Simple Permissive License. Regards, Bryce Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote: While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some modifications, but they do it at redistribution time, not at use time. Fundamentally, the author is trying to use licensing to substitute for trademark law. Title: Open Test License v1.1 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7537:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Comments: Larry Rosen: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7541:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Rod Dixon: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7545:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Recommend: disapproval. Thank you for reviewing my license submission. The license submission instructions indicate that OSI will work with [submittors] to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. Could you please let me know how that problem resolution process works? Should I make modifications in hope to change your opinion and resubmit the license? Or is there a better way? Specifically, I would like to adjust the license so that there is no perception that some uses of software are restricted. I am not sure I understand the modification restriction at redistribution time loophole you refer to above, but would be happy to use that if needed (note that the submitted license does not restrict modifications of software at all!). Please advise what my post-disapproval options are. Thank you, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On 2004.02.17 17:43 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: [snip] So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the (ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar licenses, and is therefore loathe to approve the Simple Permissive License. Finally, it seems that brevity in a license is not valued, or else that the value of brevity is outside the scope of the approval process. With all due respect to opensource.org and the long volunteer hours they seem to be putting in, I would like to point out that their role seems to be that of a licensing approval body with some well defined criteria. They may be in flux and vague to some non-licensing types, but they are there, and those criteria are not easy to create. And as such, their criteria and their general priorities are clearly stated. As with any standards type organization it's important to recognize that opensource.org people are working together to approve licenses they feel meet certain criteria and goals. Such direction and backbone is rare to find in the Open Source world. Sure, I argue quite a bit, but it's just debate. I also expect that by definition, a licensing approval body like opensource.org _must_ have a record of denials in order to demonstrate their goals (which I might add are for the better). My hat's off to them for sticking to their guns. They didn't even have my submission on the list but that's O.K., because if it's not meant for their purposes then at least they have said so. They didn't even list my license as being under consideration, which is O.K. When I submitted it I was told that there currently is a problem with the number of licenses being submitted in the first place. One thing I don't understand is if the Fair License would satisfy the goals of the Simple Permissive License while being even shorter. Personally, I'm a bit uncertain about the Fair License, perhaps because I have no legal training and I am already familiar with the MIT (-original) license. Keeping redundancy out of the mix is important. Since opensource.org has some trained legal people on their staff, I would suspect that if they think something is redundant for their criteria, then they should say so. I was surprised at the reaction to the NASA license, but I do hope that one provides some stimulus for opensource.org to evaluate its criteria. Open Source communities, especially governments using open source might learn a thing or two. This licensing thing is complicated ;-) Richard Schilling (who hopes he doesn't confuse people when he makes an argument on a variety of sides of a debate) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
