License Committee Report for September 2005

Russell Nelson nelson at
Thu Sep 8 20:45:44 UTC 2005

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

I bring two concerns from the committee to the board:

  o Country-specific Warranty disclaimers are a nasty tarball that the
    board needs to head off.  I (speaking for myself) suggest the
    board request a report from the license approval committee on
    suggested actions.

  o The board needs to revisit the three license criteria it added
    some months ago.  I have tried to apply those criteria to the OVPL,
    and not had any support.  The license-discuss membership has spoken
    loudly and clearly that we should approve all licenses that comply
    with the OSD.  Thus, we should withdraw those criteria and if we're
    serious about them, set about modifying the Open Source Definition.


Title: Fair License
License: in the submission
Comments: administrivial change (removal of URL).
Recommend: approval


Title: oxGLODE
License: there is no license submitted
Comments: Ernie pointed out that he needs to submit a license
Recommend: rejection


The ACE License is a hard case because on the face of it, the license
intends to be open source.  And yet it's duplicative and not clearly
written, and even a lawyer says that it doesn't say what it means.  On
the other hand, the submittor is not the licensor, so getting the
license changed may start at impossible and get harder from there.

Title: ACE License
License: in the submission
Comments: Rod Dixon recommends rejection:
    because any licensee can distribute the original under a
    proprietary license.  The submittor, Ken Sedgwick, has not replied
    to dispute this recommendation.
Recommend: rejection


Australia needs different warranty disclaimer wording.  This is a huge
nasty ball of wax.  How many different warranty disclaimers are there
in different countries??

Title: OZPLB Licence
License: In the submission, as proposed.  Existing license is
Comments: Brendan Scott suggests that disclaimers should go into a
Recommend: approval


The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL.  One set changes
policy, and the other set changes implementation.  I have suggested
that in order for the OVPL to not be duplicative and to increase its
readability, its implementation changes should actually go into the
CDDL.  I've asked the submittor to work with the CDDL stewards to get
those improvements into the CDDL.  I have not gotten any cooperation.
Instead, he has asked me to submit the OVPL as-is.

Aside from Andy's concern listed below, everybody thinks the license
complies with the OSD.

Title: Open Vendor Public License (OVPL)
Comments: The rationale for the license is at:
    Andy Wilson is not sure that the license's mandatory license-back
    falls within the letter and spirit of the OSD.
Recommend: disapproval if you want to require that the OVPL folks
    negotiate with the CDDL folks on incorporating improvements.
Recommend: approval otherwise


Title: Open Vendor Lessor Public License(OVLPL)
Comments: modified from the OVPL so that a derived work can be
    created without causing the OVPL to apply to the portions licensed
    under another license.
Recommend: approval should be tied to the OVPL's approval.


Title: The Kannel Software License, Version 1.0
Comments: Apache 1.1 with s/apache/kannel/g.  Andrew Wilson suggested
    Apache 2.0.
Recommend: deferral; still under discussion.


Title: CeCILL - 
License: in the submission
Comments: Andy Wilson points out that the GPL compatibility clause
    makes the license trivially OSD compatible, so that it would be
    more honest to distribute dual-licensed GPL and CeCILL.  He also
    objects to the language requiring source distribution, and the
    language requiring conformance to the terms of the license.  John
    Cowan agrees with these last two but points out that a
    contribution licensed under the CeCILL would be licensable under
    both licenses, but that a GPL contribution would not be licensable
    under the CeCILL.
Recommend: rejection because of unclear source distribution language.


Title: Open-Realty License
Comments: Not a reusable license.  Submittor announced plans to
    resubmit license in
    but never resubmitted.
Recommend: rejection

--my blog is at         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |                       |     you know what not to do.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list