[License-discuss] Questions about the Frameworx license.

Engel Nyst engel.nyst at gmail.com
Fri Mar 8 07:50:04 UTC 2013

On 3/7/13, Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:
>> I'm posting this on behalf of Alex Siegal, who is CC'd, because he's
>> having trouble posting to our list (the posts disappear, never even end
>> up in the moderation queue -- we'll take it up separately with the
>> infrastructure crew).  Alex writes:
>>>I would like to use the Frameworx license.  What, if any, modifications
>>>am I permitted to make and still be distributing source code pursuant
>>>to the approved Open Source Frameworx license?  For example, can I
>>>change "The Frameworx Company" to the name of my company?  Also, there
>>>are typo's and incorrect cross references in the license.  Am I
>>>permitted to modify those so they are correct?
> Hi, Alex-
> As a general point, we would recommend using other, better drafted
> licenses as the best way to avoid this problem. That having been said,
> I hope the discussion will focus on a good-faith attempt to answer
> your question.
> I don't think we've ever had formal policies on any of these
> questions, but I welcome correction/clarification from those with
> older historical memories.
> Fixing typos and incorrect cross references has always been done in
> various ways, so I don't think that's objectionable, and in fact, I
> wouldn't object to updating the version on the website (assuming the
> changes are truly not substantive).
> The other changes... I'm really not sure. Others want to weigh in?

I would add for your attention, on OSI site, Frameworx license is included
in the category: "non-reusable licenses". According to the explanations
from the proliferation report[1], non-reusable licenses are "specific to their
authors and cannot be reused by others. Many, but not all, of these
licenses fall into the category of vanity licenses."

As a further note, mailing lists archives show concerns raised on the
clauses 1d) and 3b) [2] (and other emails around that time).

Please consider the notes above simply the results of a public search
(this is what they are). I am not affiliated with OSI, nor a lawyer, nor
anything else that would construe the above other than it is: pointers
to existing information, in the hope they are useful.

[1] http://opensource.org/proliferation-report
[2] http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-December/000083.html

More information about the License-discuss mailing list