Derivative Works of OSL 3.0 and AFL 3.0 [Section 16]

Lawrence Rosen lrosen at
Mon Sep 12 18:41:50 UTC 2005

Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
> > Here is what I ended up with:

Chris and others,

While I contributed OSL 3.0 for others to use to create licenses as they
wish, I would sincerely appreciate your not doing so at least until OSL 3.0
is approved. Now is not the time to confuse everyone with your own versions.

Nor, as it happens, has OSI decided how to respond to an inevitable
profusion of OSL-like licenses with subtle and confusing differences.
License proliferation remains a problem. 

I was warned that this would happen when I first proposed section 16 but I
took a chance in doing so because I wanted to eliminate the problem of me
being a "license steward." Please don't write a derivative license just to
prove it can be done. At least not now, and not without careful thought


Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
   Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004) 
   [Available also at]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Zumbrunn [mailto:chris at] 
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:54 AM
> To: Chris Zumbrunn
> Cc: license-discuss at
> Subject: Re: Submitted for Approval: OSL 3.0 and AFL 3.0
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
> > Here is what I ended up with:
> >
> > As you can see, things got messy in section 16. How do you suggest 
> > section 16 would be handled in derivative licenses?
> Just in case you follow that link and are surprised that 
> section 16 is gone...
> In off-list communication with Larry we concluded that 
> section 16 can just be dropped in derivative licenses. So, it's gone.
> Chris

More information about the License-discuss mailing list