CSuite

[John Cowan]

David Murdoch wrote:

> We are continuing development and see real benefits to being OSI
> certified.
> 
> Could you please indicate what steps we would have to undertake to be
> accepted as open source.

Disclaimer: I have no official connection with OSI.

Your license is in no way open source.  It *prima facie* violates several
criteria of the Open Source Definition (OSD)
(http://www.opensource.org/osd.html):

	#1: free redistribution must be permitted
	#3: derived works must be redistributable
	#6: no discrimination against specific fields of endeavor
	#7: license must apply equally to all recipients

I see no way in which this license could be made open source
without discarding about 90% of it.  What you basically have
here is an ordinary proprietary license for a product which is
made available at a cost of $0 to licensees who must meet other
requirements.

Specific points:

> 1.  License
> 
> The Coop grants to the Licensee a non-exclusive right to use the
> Software for a period of one (1) year [...].

Although nothing in the OSD lays down that open-source licenses
must be perpetual, in practice all existing licenses are, except
that some licenses are automatically revoked in part or as a whole
if a patent dispute develops.

> With respect to organizations for which membership or usage fees are a
> normal requirement, the "no barriers to access, economic or otherwise"
> requirement is satisfied

OSI-licensed code must be usable by any sort of organization without
discrimination.

> 2 Use
> 
> As a Licensee, you may use the Software solely for the development of
> a community computer network [...]

OSI-licensed code must be usable for any lawful purpose whatsoever.
 
> 3.   Permission to Modify
> 
> The Licensee is granted permission to modify the Software code for the
> purpose of eliminating bugs and enhancing functionality, provided
> that any such changes are forwarded to the Chebucto Suite Development
> Team, c/o Chebucto Community Net, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada,
> e-mail: csuite at chebucto.ns.ca, for possible incorporation into future
> versions of the Software.

A requirement to transmit all changes is considered by the open-source
community to be unreasonably burdensome.  An acceptable alternative is
to require that the modifier make the modifications either publicly
available, or available to the original code contributor, at a well-known
place such as a Web site.  It is then enough to send the original
contributor the URL of the site.

>  Copyright of all contributed code will be
> held jointly by the Coop or its assignees and the contributor.  All
> contributed code will be distributed under a standard Chebucto Suite
> Copyright Notice.

(Quite apart from open-source issues:  if you are going to do this, you
had better make sure that the contributor signs a form giving your
assignee -- I assume the Coop is not incorporated -- joint copyright.
You might find yourself sued by the contributor's employer.
The FSF has standard forms they use for this which you could adapt.) 

> 6.   Prohibited Use
> 
> As the Licensee you may not:
> 
>  (i)  distribute copies of the Software or accompanying related
>  materials to any other individual or organization;
> 
>  (ii) modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile,
>  disassemble, or create derivative works based on the Software otherwise
>  than as provided for in this License Agreement.

These blanket prohibitions are fundamentally incompatible with the OSD. 

> 9.   Provision of Current Information
> 
> The Licensee is required to provide regular reports of system/hardware
> configuration, system usage/trends, user statistics (such as services
> utilized), etc. to the Coop.  These reports will be available to all
> sites for analysis to assist in the identification upgrade strategies
> that will benefit Chebucto Suite sites.

While doubtless laudable in purpose, this restriction on use is incompatible with
the OSD.  It may also be unenforceable in jurisdictions (such as Europe)
that limit the sharing of personal information about users.

On a personal note: I would characterize this whole license as "attempting
to force customers to do the Right Thing".  I believe the spirit of the
open-source movement is better served when people are allowed to do the
Right Thing.  Your software (I looked at an earlier version of it) is
probably not very interesting to people who are not trying to create
free on-ramps; commercial ISPs would be unlikely to take advantage of it.
Demanding that customers send back their changes, bug fixes, and usage logs
is about like demanding that people keep breathing: it will happen whether
you compel it or not, if your product is at all successful.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)