License Committee Report
cleeming at uvic.ca
Wed Apr 14 22:28:42 UTC 2004
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
>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
>Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged
>to infringe a patent.
>Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval
> John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments.
> The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf
>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
> John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the
> previous concerns had been addressed.
>The author wants to control software which is merely written to work
>in conjunction with this software.
>Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
> John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it.
> Neither is Alex Rousskov.
>Recommend: turn it down.
>Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0
> 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.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss