Looking for OSI approval of license
Karl Fogel
kfogel at red-bean.com
Thu Apr 7 21:51:18 UTC 2011
Andrew Oliver <acoliver at gmail.com> writes:
>I'm going to presume that the chair of each committee is the default
>list administrator for those lists until he/she/it designate someone
>else...
That sounds reasonable in general.
In practice, I am offline probably more often than many people here, but
I'll take that up with the License Committee and see if we can get some
extra moderators, so messages don't get blocked.
-Karl
>On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com>
>wrote:
>
> Andrew Oliver <acoliver at gmail.com> writes:
> >Guys you're STILL actually NOT on license discuss (you replaced
> the
> >description but not the address in <>). Please reply to this
> email
> >instead so it can be on license discuss instead of the board
> list.
>
>
> Thank you, Andrew. Could we configure lists so that they look
> like
> this:
>
> "OSI License Discuss" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
>
> instead of the redundant:
>
> "license-discuss at opensource.org" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
>
> Then this sort of error won't happen anymore. I refuse to call it
> pilot
> error: I'm a human, I notice patterns, and I saw me an "@" sign
> :-).
> The UI is the right place for the fix.
>
> [took Rick off CC list, btw]
>
> -K
>
>
>
>
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Herrick, Rick
> <herrickr at mir.wustl.edu>
> >wrote:
> >
> > Karl,
> >
> > I'll take this to the people that know all the contacts in
> legal
> > and administration and see what kind of reaction I get.
> Thanks a
> > lot for the information, this is the sort of thing that
> really
> > helps clarify the need for these sorts of changes.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel at red-bean.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:06 PM
> > To: Herrick, Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > Cc: Jim Jagielski; license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: Looking for OSI approval of license
> >
> > "Herrick, Rick" <herrickr at mir.wustl.edu> writes:
> > >The primary issue is that this has already been through the
> legal
> > >compliance and approval process at Washington University,
> > Harvard, and
> > >Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Given the nature of the
> software
> > >(managing clinical research data in compliance with federal
> HIPAA
> > >requirements), the longevity of the current license (since
> 2005),
> > and
> > >the lack of, um, nimbleness on the part of large academic
> > institutions'
> > >respective legal departments, I'm not sure it's possible for
> us
> > to
> > >adopt another licensing scheme within a practical timeframe.
> >
> > Rick, would it be possible to put me in touch with those
> lawyers?
> >
> > I'm the License Committee Chair of the OSI -- still quite
> green,
> > as we held the committee elections yesterday, but as it
> happens I've
> > recently been in similar discussions with some other
> universities
> > and we ended up persuading them to go with a standard open
> source
> > license. I would like very much for that to happen here.
> >
> > One solution:
> >
> > Use a standard license (say, Simplified BSD-style), but
> include
> > with the software a non-binding human-readable preface,
> pointing
> > out all the factual -- but non-license-related -- things are
> > currently in the XNAT license, for example:
> >
> > - The fact that this is not a trademark agreement (yes, and
> that
> > remains true whether the license talks about it or not)
> >
> > - No clinical-use approval implied (right, but that can be
> > pointed out
> > without it being part of the license text)
> >
> > - Etc
> >
> > Even given that the XNAT license is simple in its own right,
> it is
> > still unfamiliar to everyone. The thing about a standard
> open
> > source license is that a given legal department only needs to
> > learn it once.
> > Thereafter, the *marginal* cost of the license drops to
> nearly
> > zero -- any time you see that license, you know what you're
> > getting, and you don't have to re-evaluate it.
> >
> > Thus in the aggregate, *any* standard open source license is
> less
> > costly (to the ecosystem as a whole, including even other
> > departments of your own university) than any rarely-used
> license,
> > even if the latter is a marvel of simplicity and readability
> in
> > its own right.
> >
> > If they haven't much experience with open source licenses,
> they
> > probably won't understand how big a problem license
> proliferation
> > would be. We
> > *cannot* have every software producer rolling their own
> license
> > too. No quantity of lawyers will ever be sufficient to make
> that
> > sustainable.
> >
> > One way to convey this to them is to point out how much work
> they
> > would have had to do if every piece of open source software
> the
> > universities use right now came with its own unique license.
> Do a
> > quick survey -- it won't take you long -- and you'll quickly
> be in
> > the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, if
> > accounted fairly.
> >
> > If they don't want to cause that problem to other
> institutions, or
> > to other parts of their own institutions, then the answer is
> to
> > use one of the standard licenses, which already provide all
> the
> > protections they need and can reasonably enforce. I would
> suggest
> > the Simplified BSD-style license, but can provide other
> options or
> > references if they need.
> >
> > Best,
> > -Karl Fogel
> >
> > >I understand that that's not your problem, but that's our
> > motivation :)
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim at jimjag.com]
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:31 PM
> > >To: Herrick, Rick
> > >Cc: osi at opensource.org
> > >Subject: Re: Looking for OSI approval of license
> > >
> > >Hello there Rick, thanks for contacting us.
> > >
> > >A more detailed email follow-up will be coming in a short
> while,
> > but
> > >what was/is the rationale for requiring a new license; what
> > aspects
> > >prevent you from being able to use one of the many existing
> > >OSI-approved licenses?
> > >
> > >Thx in advance.
> > >
> > >On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Herrick, Rick wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi, I'm a developer on the XNAT project here at WashU. We're
> > >> interested in trying to get an open-source license for
> some
> > support
> > >> software (Atlassian stuff) but don't have an OSI-approved
> > license. So
> > >> I have some questions about getting this approved. The
> license
> > is
> > >> viewable at:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.xnat.org/Download+XNAT
> > >>
> > >> As best I can tell, this license complies with the Open
> Source
> > >> Definition, but I can't provide you with the license
> > proliferation
> > >> category, as that page seems to be unavailable at the
> moment.
> > >>
> > >> Please let me know how to proceed with this request. I'm
> not
> > the
> > >> license steward at this point, but would like to hold off
> > getting him
> > >> involved until such time as it's absolutely necessary,
> since
> > he's
> > >> pretty busy running the group!
> > >>
> > >> Any help would be much appreciated and any information I
> can
> > provide
> > >> will be provided forthwith! Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> Rick Herrick
> > >> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> > >> Neuroinformatics Research Group
> > >> Washington University School of Medicine
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The material in this message is private and may contain
> > Protected
> > >> Healthcare Information (PHI). If you are not the intended
> > recipient,
> > >> be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying
> or
> > the
> > >> taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
> > information
> > >> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
> > error,
> > >> please immediately notify the sender via telephone or
> return
> > mail.
> >
> > The material in this message is private and may contain
> Protected
> > Healthcare Information (PHI). If you are not the intended
> > recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure,
> > copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the
> contents of
> > this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received
> > this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via
> > telephone or return mail.
> >
>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list