License committee report for January 2008
nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Jan 9 06:54:56 UTC 2008
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. This finishes up
the licenses submitted to license-discuss.
Title: the unnamed license used for the Multics release
License: In the submission
Comments: Cowan, Moen, Flashen agree that it's an Open Source
license. Flashen would prefer them to use a different license, but
wouldn't we all?
Recommend: approval, placement in non-reusable category because of
named copyright holders and required historical background.
Title: Open Source Hardware License
Title: Minimal Library License (MLL)
Comments: This approval request is not actionable since the submittor
proposes one license or another license.
Recommend: no action
Title: The Simplified BSD License
Comments: The board sent this license back to the submittor because
the license is identical to the FreeBSD license, yet the FreeBSD
license is more well-known. The submittor has refused to change the
name of his submission:
Recommend: Modifying the New BSD License template so that the third
clause is optional. In this manner, both the FreeBSD license and
the Dag-Erling's Simplified BSD License will fit into the template
with no license proliferation problems.
Title: The Boost Software License, Version 1.0 (BSL1.0)
Discussion follows this posting:
Comments: Travers and Flashen agree it complies with the OSD. Cowan
points out that ti doesn't grant the right to distribute derivative
works. Flashen points out that the BSD license doesn't either.
The license is closest to the MIT license, but gives the additional
release from needing to include the copyright notice in binaries.
Title: Reciprocal Public License 1.5
also see the 1.3 Revision (never formally submitted):
(there was no discussion, so the submittor restarted the discussion
process under the subject "RPL 1.5 discussion")
Comments: Flashen suggests that we wait to approve this license until
we have more experience with attribution. Yet, this is an update
to an existing license, so the question is not whether the license
is a good license or not (the board pretty much agreed on approving
it back in 2002 that it was not likely to get much update), but
whether the changes increase or decrease its compliance with the
Recommend: Approval with deprecation of RPL 1.1.
Title: THINGIEsthetic Permissive License
Comments: The name of this license must be modified. Why? Look at
the discussion. We're not ready for the use of unicode characters
in license names. (This is my own personal comment, but I hope that
the evidence will convince everyone who doesn't agree with me.)
Rosen suggests that this license is worthless because it is too
simple. Nobody has explicitly said whether the license complies
with the OSD, but it's so short and simple that it MUST, mustn't it?
Recommend: Return to the submittor for revision.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Software that needs
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | documentation is software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | that needs repair.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog |
More information about the License-discuss