I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

>Matthew Flaschen 
>>Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:

>As noted many a time, this argument can be made for any restriction.

An already approved restriction for very much the same concerns and the
same general group (academic institutions).

>> I dunno how you would hold them accountable for something I might
>> choose to do.

> I wouldn't hold them accountable, I would hope the OSI board would hold
> /you/ "accountable", as in "be a little disappointed and maybe not as
> convinced by the 'it's temporary' argument in the future".

>> Nor am I sure why you would want to preclude or even
>> frown upon on someone using an OSI approved license...

>There's a whole category of licenses (actually, at least three
>categories: "Special Purpose Licenses", "Non-reusable licenses",
>"Licenses that have been voluntarily retired") listed at
>http://opensource.org/licenses/category <http://opensource.org/licenses/category>  that OSI discourages use of.
>Educational Community License is on the Special Purpose List.

Oddly ECL v2.0 is not on the category list.  The category list is somewhat out
of date...and honestly not too useful.  There seems no implication that folks
shouldn't use Special Purpose Licenses if they happen to have the
same special purposes.  Non-reusable licenses and retired licenses make
sense to be less re-usable by definition.
 
I know your dim view of NOSA from your actions on Wikipedia.   Sorry, 
but I also contribute under NOSA without the express permission of the OSI 
board.  So I guess I am an unrepentant and repeat special purpose license 
offender.
 
There may be users of ECL that have not reported back to the Sakai folks.
ECL v1 is not listed as retired on the list.

>This problem is solved with GPL or MS-RecL (assuming you overlook the
>file-based weakness).  The only "problem" you haven't solved is putting
>a limited patent grant in a reciprocal license, and I think OSI's
>reluctant to do that, based on past experience with the BIPL.

That's fine and my intent with asking was to determine what that response
would be.  The discussion has been very interesting and I am unlikely to
recommend submitting a reciprocal variant for approval.

>> Prior to the Bayh-Dole Act it was a lot more informal...

>And it still is, in practice.  I can give you a dozen examples of people
>using the MIT license (which does have a patent grant, whether people
>like it or not) without their institution's explicit approval.

A lot of folks break the rules.  I suggest you might not be so approving
if they were breaking the GPL's rules.
 
That some folks break rules doesn't mean that it is not a concern or
that the rules don't exist.

>That's a valid goal, but it doesn't require a new license.

Evidently not.  
 
I will ask Chris Coppla if Sakai prefers that I not reuse the ECL v2.  If so 
then I will forego recommending an OSI license.  Currently the process here 
is to release under the JHU/APL Open Source Agreement.  It is not OSI 
approved so it might have been nice to move to an OSI approved license in 
general.  One named the Educational Community License seems applicable 
and I've always liked Apache anyway.  I'd be pretty happy to not have to 
reinvent the wheel.
 
If there IS some expectation that no one else would use the ECL v2 then it would
have been better to call it the Sakai/Kuali License and stick it in the Non-Reusable 
section.
 
However I will be dissapointed not to be able to reuse both their license and CLA.
Personally, I feel that for the educational community they have addressed many
common concerns and have an effective modern license that is by design as 
mainstream as possible while meeting the concerns of academic institutions.
 
Its also really easy to understand:  "This is Apache with this one change".
 
ECL v2 should not be relegated to some secondary, merely tolerated, status that 
no one else should use.  I hope this is not the position of the OSI.
 
Regards,
 
Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071128/6853c6dd/attachment.html>