[License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Wed Dec 21 21:28:51 UTC 2011

Karl Fogel scripsit:

>   Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0

This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first
brought up, and it still is.

>   Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0

The issue here seems to be clauses 1d and 3b:

    1. (d) Value-Added Services means any commercial or fee-based
    software-related service, including without limitation: system or
    application development or consulting; technical or end-user support
    or training; distribution maintenance, configuration or versioning;
    or outsourced, hosted or network-based application services.

    3. (b) Any Value-Added Services that you offer or provide,
    directly or indirectly, in relation to any Downstream Distribution
    shall be offered and provided on commercial terms that are
    reasonably commensurate to the fair market value of such Value-Added
    Services. In addition, the terms and conditions on which any such
    Value Added Services are so offered or provided shall be consistent
    with, and shall fully support, the intent and purpose of this
    License Agreement.

These are funky terms, but they only require that such services
be provided on commercial terms (the "reasonably commensurate"
stuff is supererogatory, since nobody would accept commercial terms
incommensurate with fair market value), and in no way restrict the
offering on other terms provided they support the intent and purpose of
this License Agreement, which has to do with making the original code
freely available.

>   OCLC Public Research License            2.0
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0

I don't see any problems with this license.

>   Reciprocal Public License

This license is like the APL, but more so.

>   Ricoh Source Code Public License
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL

This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the
"obnoxious BSD advertising clause":

    5.1. Advertising Materials.

    All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Governed
    Code must display the following acknowledgement: "This product
    includes software developed by Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc."

Now the 4-clause BSD has never gotten OSI approval, though it is listed
as FSF-free.  But I don't see how it contravenes any of the OSD clauses.

>   Sybase Open Watcom Public License         1.0
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0

I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either.


And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods --the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft)   John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list