Two new licenses - OVPL & OVLPL

David Dillard david.dillard at
Mon Apr 11 16:30:02 UTC 2005


I understand what you're saying, in the strictest sense I agree that it
is a form of restriction.  However, I wonder if it's a restriction that
violates the intent.

Looking at the SISSL license (an OSI approved license), in section 3.1
it states "The Modifications which You create must comply with all
requirements set out by the Standards body in effect one hundred twenty
(120) days before You ship the Contributor Version. In the event that
the Modifications do not meet such requirements, You agree to publish
either (i) any deviation from the Standards protocol resulting from
implementation of Your Modifications and a reference implementation of
Your Modifications or (ii) Your Modifications in Source Code form, and
to make any such deviation and reference implementation or Modifications
available to all third parties under the same terms as this license on a
royalty free basis within thirty (30) days of Your first customer
shipment of Your Modifications."

I consider this a technical restriction on redistribution in the same
vein as you raise, yet this is an OSI approved license.  Perhaps this
just slipped by when the SISSL license was evaluated or perhaps it
wasn't considered a real violation of the OSD.

Anyone who was around when was SISSL approved care to comment?

--- David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Bedell [mailto:kbedell at] 
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 9:32 AM
> To: license-discuss at
> Subject: RE: Two new licenses - OVPL & OVLPL
> Under what circumstances are developers required to provide 
> code back to the ID? Am I correct in assuming that code needs 
> to be provided/licensed back to the ID if one chooses to 
> engage in 'distribution'?
> If I create a derivative work in which the ID's code makes up 
> only 10% (or
> less) of the overall code base, am I required to license my 
> 90% (or more) back to the ID under the terms you've described?
> Using the GPL, as I understand, I need only provide my code 
> to those I distribute the derivative work to -- not to the ID as well.
> Under this license, it would seem as if I need to distribute 
> source code in all circumstances both to the people I 
> distribute my application to as well as back to the ID.
> I'd question whether or not this met OSD criteria #1 and #5.
> "1. Free Redistribution
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or 
> giving away the software as a component of an aggregate 
> software distribution containing programs from several 
> different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or 
> other fee for such sale."
> Comment: If the license requires me to provide a license to 
> the ID of my modifications in order for me to redistribute 
> code under the license, I'd question whether or not that 
> could be considered "Free Redistribution".
> "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group 
> of persons."
> Comment: This license clearly provides different rights for 
> the ID than it provides for all others. I'd ask if this would 
> be considered discrimination.
> Even if there is a quid pro quo, it may still be considered 
> discriminatory.
> To argue the other side, I can see how this license may 
> provide significant benefits to a vendor in terms of engaging 
> their customers/business partners as co-developers. While I 
> believe this license is of value, I'd question whether or not 
> it could be considered "open source".
> IANAL, etc.
> -kevin
> --
> Kevin Bedell
> Black Duck Software
> 100 Beaver St
> Waltham, MA 02453
> (p) 781-891-5100 x-140
> (c) 603-422-1517

More information about the License-discuss mailing list