[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Views on React licensing?

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Henrik Ingo
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 6:55 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org> 
> wrote:
> > - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of
> >   software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent
> >   license grants or nonasserts? (This has been done by some other
> >   companies without significant controversy.)
>
> This should of course be discouraged. However, I sympathize with this kind 
> of setup if it is intended to be a proposal for a license that
> doesn't yet exist. If Facebook a) intends for the combined license to 
> qualify as open source, and b) eventually submit it for OSI approval,
> then it seems to me this is a natural path towards such a goal.

If it is discouraged, then OSI will need to start accepting more licenses into 
the fold.  I brought up the problems that the US Government has with regards 
to copyright, which is why we developed a new license based on Apache 2.0.  It 
was roundly criticized as not being necessary, and at this point, I suspect 
we're probably going to be going with CC0 + Patent release, in much the same 
way as React has.  That will probably cause license fracturing in a way that I 
don't think OSI or anyone in the Open Source community wants.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161205/39d901c1/attachment.p7s>