[License-discuss] AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0

[Simon Phipps]

That page is linked from http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0 Larry (at
the bottom) and no other narrative. What is the specific change you are
requesting?

S.


On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Open Source friends,
>
> I discovered in the past few days on other lists that there are several
> misleading descriptions of my AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0 licenses on FSF and OSI
> websites. Neither site bothered to publish my own description of these
> licenses, and their own characterizations are incorrect.
>
> Please see this: http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm.
>
> I would appreciate it if FSF and OSI would copy this document to their own
> websites instead of inventing their own.
>
> Best regards, /Larry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:mark at klomp.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:32 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay
> > FOSS license. But AFL 3.0 did that very thing 10 years ago. The only
> > reason for AFL 3.0 not being accepted generally for that same purpose
> > is the FSF's complaint, "contains contract provisions." That kind of
> > quasi-legal balderdash is directly relevant to what McCoy and others
> > want to do.
> >
> > And if AFL 3.0 isn't satisfactory for some random reason, then use the
> > Apache 2.0 license.
>
> Sorry Larry, but these are impractical suggestions wrt reviewing the
> license submission and intent of the BSD + Patent License. The AFLv3 is GPL
> incompatible because it contains contract provisions requiring distributors
> to obtain the express assent of recipients to the license terms. The extra
> restrictions making ASLv2 incompatible with GPLv2 have already been
> discussed. Both are clearly documented cases of expressly incompatible
> licenses by the GPL license steward the FSF. I understand your desire to
> mention your disagreement with the license steward and discuss alternative
> legal interpretations of what it means to be compatible with the GPL then
> what might be generally accepted and used in practice. But it is offtopic
> and not a very constructive discussion in the context of this license
> submission, which doesn't contain any of those extra restrictions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>



-- 
Simon Phipps*, Director, The Open Source Initiative*
+44 238 098 7027 or +1 415 683 7660 : www.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160118/e9e7f653/attachment.html>