[License-discuss] [License-review] New license submission
luis at lu.is
Wed May 8 22:31:35 UTC 2013
[I've moderated this list for the moment to respect the time of list
subscribers. Please send any followup not related to the substance of
this license to license-discuss.]
[I would also remind everyone in this thread that we have a code of
conduct: http://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing There is at
least one clear-cut case of violation in this thread (not Chris!) and
others are flirting with the line. Apologies are always an appropriate
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chris Jones <chrisjones at spin.net.au> wrote:
> I have to admit, I am very disappointed with the reaction that we have
> received from the Open Source Initiative upon submission of our new license.
It is unfortunate that you're disappointed. As others here have
discussed, we have long-set rules that licenses/license submissions
must meet. These rules reflect both the values of our movement and ~
15 years of practical experience implementing those values.
Folks here politely and clearly pointed out where your license and the
required supplementary materials came up short. It would have been
helpful if they'd pointed directly to the sections of the Open Source
Definition that you violated, but regardless, their criticisms are
accurate and reflect our rules.
While I feel that we already make pretty clear what these rules are to
anyone submitting to the list, in an attempt to make sure that future
license submitters cannot be surprised, I've done a few things today:
- Edited the license-review list description to further emphasize that
submissions must meet our requirements, and to link to the
requirements rather than just naming them (top of
- Edited the approval rules to make more clear exactly what must be
submitted to the list (step #6 of http://opensource.org/approval).
I also made two small substantive changes:
- We've never actually required submitters to read the OSD. I always
thought that was implicit; I've now made it explicit (step #1 of
- We've allowed people to link to licenses, rather than paste them
into the email submission. I've changed that, though presumably we
would not have rejected a submission that was otherwise correct
(second bullet point of step #6 of http://opensource.org/approval)
Also, in the future, I will try to moderate out submissions that do
not meet these requirements.
I hope that helps things going forward.
> As at this stage, I am unsure whether I will allow my Organization to
> modify the license to allow commercial sale of software using The
> Freedom Transfer License (FTL). That is simply not what we set out to
> do. And the Open Source Initiative seems unwilling to be reasonable in
> response to this.
> Paradise Software has the full backing and support of a fellow licensing
> organization. We will continue to take under consideration any other
> necessary changes to the license for the review process to
> commence/continue with the Open Source Initiative. But at this current
> stage, it seems the Open Source Initiative is unwilling to support and
> co-operate with a new license submission and we consider the license
> submission rejected.
> Chris Jones
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss