AW: For Approval: German Free Software License

Bernhard Fastenrath bfastenrath at
Wed Nov 24 11:12:18 UTC 2004

Axel Metzger wrote:
>>This allows the license board to change the terms of
>>the license in any way they desire, even in a way that is no
>>longer compliant with the OSI definition of open source software,
>>which should be sufficient to make the license unacceptable for
>>the OSI.
>>This clause is also very likely unacceptable as both the licensor and
>>the licensee give up control of the content of their contract.
>>To leave the interpretation of 'required and reasonable' to a court
>>seems to overstrain the court as these terms are subject to
> Please see also my long comment on this point in the answer to Chuck Swiger.
> There is one substantial new point in your remark. You are suggesting that a
> license cannot be considered as an Open Source License if one is not sure
> about the exact terms of future license versions. I do not agree to that
> point of view. If a new license version would not meet the requirements of
> the OSI Definition then this new license version should not be certified. I
> do not see why license version 1 should be infected by a (misleadingly!!)
> presumed non-compliance of license version 2. BTW: We will make it clear in
> the statute of the license board that every new license version will meet the
> requirements of the OSI definition.

I would like to suggest that this is insufficient as the statute of the
license board is subject to change while licensees and licensors using
the GFSL have entered a binding agreement that can be modified by the
license board.

kind regards,

-- <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list