[License-discuss] SPDX - OSI issues - revised
Karl Fogel
kfogel at red-bean.com
Tue Jun 19 18:21:39 UTC 2012
Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy at openlogic.com> writes:
> I am resending this, as I forgot to add one other outstanding
> issue regarding the zlib and libpng licenses – that question is
> added to the bottom of this email!
Then:
>Oh my. One more time with the attachment. My apologies!
See, my tactic of delaying handling this bears fruit! :-)
Thanks, Jilayne. Will handle as soon as can (or Luis or someone will --
in any case, it's not dropped, just in the somewhat brimming queue.)
-Karl
> From: J Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy at openlogic.com>
> Date: Friday, June 1, 2012 3:17 PM
> To: Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com>,
> "license-discuss at opensource.org" <license-discuss at opensource.org>,
> John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
> Cc: SPDX-legal <spdx-legal at lists.spdx.org>
> Subject: SPDX - OSI issues - revised
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Karl and John,
>
>
> Thanks again for all the updates. I have finally gotten
> around to going through each of your emails very thoroughly
> and making appropriate updates to the SPDX License List. I
> have yet to upload it yet, as I have a few more things to do
> unrelated to OSI, but it should be up (v1.16) on Monday at the
> latest.
>
>
> In the meantime, I just put the outstanding questions here in
> an email, since there were only three. Figured that would be
> easier. I've cut and pasted the string from the previous
> emails (in italics) and then my current comments/questions
> begin with a --->
>
>
> Thanks again!
>
>
> - Jilayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apple Public Source License 1.0 & Apple Public Source License
> 1.1
>
>
>
> Regarding Apple Public Source License 1.0 (APSL-1.0) you
> ask:
>
>
> > Was this ever OSI approved? Note at top of fedora
> url says: This
> > license is non-free. At one point, it could be found
> at
> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt, but
> that link now
> > redirects to APSL 2.0. A copy of the license text has
> been taken
> > from archive.org's October 01, 2007 revision.
>
>
>
> The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia
> claims that
> APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this
> statement.
> That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable
> fuss at the
> time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first
> of the new
> licenses with that property).
>
>
> --> do I understand correctly that neither 1.0 nor 1.1 were
> OSI approved? A little confused by email comments/string
>
>
>
>
> Artistic License 1.0
>
>
>
> Regarding the Artistic License 1.0, you have done some fine
> detective
> work, and you asked:
>
>
> > OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded
> licenses"
> > category list.
> >
> > Also note that Perl link has 10 clause version of license,
> whereas
> > OSI link has 9 clause with note at top about additional
> clause. for
> > searching/templating reasons, these should probably be
> listed as two
> > different licenses. Suggest naming as follows:
> > Artistic License 1.0 (Perl) // Artistic-Perl-1.0
> > Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0
> >
> > thoughts?
>
>
> Excellent idea, except maybe we should put the "(Perl)" before
> the
> version number, since "Perl" describes a flavor of the license
> and that
> flavor could conceivably happen to other versions, though we
> hope not.
> That would also match the proposed SPDX short name. Thus
>
>
> Artistic License (Perl) 1.0 // Artistic-Perl-1.0
> Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0
>
>
> Would that work for you?
>
>
> For now I've
> renamed http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0
> to opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0, edited it to link
> correctly to
> the superseding version (Artistic-2.0), and to link to a new
> page
> opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0.
>
>
> Now, independently of the above, there is a serious bug in the
> Perl
> clause, and while I understand why it was OSI-approved, I
> think the OSI
> approved its *intended* meaning rather than its textual
> meaning.
>
>
> This should really be a separate thread, but I want to at
> least write it
> down here now, so there's a record of it somewhere:
>
>
> The OSI page above says:
>
>
> | Some versions of the artistic license contain the
> following clause:
> |
> | 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial
> distribution is
> | always permitted provided that the use of this Package
> is
> | embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make
> this
> | Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the
> commercial
> | distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a
> distribution of
> | this Package.
> |
> | With or without this clause, the license is approved by
> OSI for
> | certifying software as OSI Certified Open Source.
>
>
> That's great, except s/commercial/proprietary/ :-(. What the
> text
> obviously means is "proprietary", and furthermore, if it were
> to be
> interpreted literally as "commercial", then it would (to my
> mind) be
> clearly not open source.
>
>
> I'm not sure what to do about this now. I just wanted to
> mention it.
> Any review of old licenses, such as you have done, is bound to
> turn up
> issues like this. Thank goodness it's an issue with
> Artistic-Perl-1.0
> and not with, say, GPL-2.0 :-).
>
>
>
>
> --> in regards to adding a new license/version for Artistic
> License (Perl) 1.0 – this is a good idea and your naming
> suggestions are inline with the naming protocol for SPDX, so
> that's all good. BUT one problem… the actual license on the
> Perl site (http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html ) is not
> the same as the one here
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0) --> the
> OSI perl version is simply the Artistic License 1.0 verbatim
> with the additional clause. However, the license on the Perl
> site has other differences. I'm attaching a Word document
> with a merge and compare between the OSI Artistic Perl and the
> Perl site Artistic Perl licenses
>
> * anyone know what to do about this? I feel like the one on
> the Perl site should be captured, but what about the OSI
> variation? For the moment, I'm not adding the Artistic Perl
> license to the SPDX License List until this is sorted out,
> as I don't want to add one and then have to change it later.
>
> * There also appears to be a "Clarified Artistic License"
> which is different yet again. That is on the SPDX license
> list already (and assumed to NOT be OSI approved)
>
>
>
> GNU Library General Public License v2
>
>
>
> > Was this ever OSI approved?
>
>
> I don't know. I suspect the answer to that one would not
> be so hard
> to find, but I want to plough to the end of this
> spreadsheet right now
> and get these responses posted. I did a cursory search on
> the OSI
> site and didn't find any evidence of approval. Anyone
> here know about
> LGPL-2.0?
>
>
>
> The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU
> Library
> vs. Lesser Public License) are entirely editorial. I can
> provide a list
> of them for anyone who wants it.
>
>
> --> so, is that a yes, it's OSI approved?
>
>
>
> Zlip/libpng license
>
>
> OSI lists the "zlib/libpng" license as OSI approved here
> - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib – this text is the same
> as the actual zlib license, see
> here: http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html. However, the libpng
> license, while incorporation some of the same text as the zlib
> license, has a different disclaimer and additional text, see
> here: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt
> As a result, SPDX lists these licenses separately, that is: zlib
> License (OSI approved) http://spdx.org/licenses/Zlib and libpng
> License (not OSI approved) http://spdx.org/licenses/Libpng
> Yet, the libpng license text actually states that it is OSI
> approved.
> --> so, first question is: was the libpng license (separately or
> specifically) OSI approved? If so, can we list it separately?
> Either way, can we name the two licenses to avoid confusion? (see
> old string re: this naming issue here
> - http://old.nabble.com/FW%3A--png-mng-implement--zlib-libpng-license-
> name-td24275146.html)
>
>
> Attaching updated v1.16 spreadsheet (which will also be posted in
> full zip format with associated .txt files on SPDX.org tomorrow
> and html pages updates shortly thereafter).
>
>
> It'd be great if we can get these last few niggly issues resolved
> soon. Karl, John – let me know if a call might help facilitate or
> anything for that matter!!
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
> Jilayne
>
>
>
>
>
> Jilayne Lovejoy | Corporate Counsel
> OpenLogic, Inc.
>
> jlovejoy at openlogic.com | 720 240 4545
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list