[License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses
Smith, McCoy
mccoy.smith at intel.com
Fri Apr 7 18:14:01 UTC 2017
What Larry is describing is similar to a project that at one point was being put together in part by Professor Urban back when she was at USC law: A licensing wizard for use in selecting an open source license from the existing OSI list. That project is described in the licensing proliferation committee report that came out about 10 years ago: https://opensource.org/proliferation-report
I thought that at some point this project was launched, but it may not have ever been. There may have been some concerns at the time (as they likely would be if revived or redone) of to what extent such a tool might be providing legal advice.
But I think that at some point it would be helpful for there to be a resource for people to sift through all the licenses on the list to understand what they do and don’t do.
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:40 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses
Richard Fontana wrote:
> Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly excludes patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all spurious matches.
Luis is noting that the current OSI list of "popular" licenses is unreliable also. Let's not do nothing about it.
Popularity is important only for social media starlets.
More important for us would be a list that describes the fundamental areas where each license differs from the others. Give licensors a reason to select a license, and give licensees a reason to understand its risks and benefits. Don't limit those descriptions to 2 sentences or to arbitrary classifications. Stating explicitly in this OSD list that certain licenses are "popular" on Black Duck or other lists may be helpful but not determinative.
Yes, that license list is now long. If that length problem is the sole reason that you list certain licenses first in a shorter "recommended" list, do so explicitly but with appropriate caveats not to trust those recommendations.
The alternative to that kind of limited but precise legal analysis is that new proposed licenses will be rejected or discussed to death simply because they aren't popular. They should only be rejected if (1) they don't contain anything legally new (non-proliferation), or (2) they don't satisfy the OSD (not open source).
/Larry
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:51 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses
Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly excludes patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all spurious matches.
Richard
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
Yet another (inevitably flawed) data set:
https://libraries.io/licenses
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa <luis at lu.is<mailto:luis at lu.is>> wrote:
[Apparently I got unsubscribed at some point, so if you've sent an email here in recent months seeking my feedback, please resend.]
Hey, all-
I promised some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13 into updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list. Here goes.
tl;dr
I think OSI should have an data-driven short license list with a replicable and transparent methodology, supplemented by a new-and-good(?) list that captures licenses that aren't yet popular but are high quality and have some substantial improvement that advances the goals of OSI.
Purposes of non-comprehensive lists
If you Google "open source licenses", OSI pages are the top two hits. Historically, those pages were not very helpful unless you already knew something about open source. Having a shorter "top" list can help make the OSI website more useful to newcomers by suggesting a starting place for their exploration and education about open source.
In addition, third parties often look to OSI as a trusted (neutral?) source for "top" or "best" licenses that they can incorporate into products. (The full OSI-approved list is not practical for many applications.) For example, if OSI had an up-to-date short list, it might have been the basis for GitHub's license chooser.
A list that is purely based on popularity would freeze open source in a particular time, likely making it hard for new licenses with important innovations to get adoption. However, a list based on more subjective criteria is hard to create and update.
Past attempts
The proliferation report attempted to address this problem by categorizing existing licenses. These categories were, intentionally or not, seen as the "popular or strong communities list" and "everything else". Without a process or clear set of criteria to update the "popular" list, however, it became frozen in time. It is now difficult to credibly recommend the list to newcomers or third parties (MPL 1.1 is deprecated; no mention of Blackduck #4 GPL v3; etc.).
There was also substantial work done towards a license "chooser" or "wizard". However, this runs into some of the same problems - either the chooser is opinionated (and so pisses off people, and potentially locks the licenses in time) or is borderline-useless for newcomers (because it still requires substantial additional research after using it).
Data-driven "popular" list
With all that in mind, I think that OSI needs a (mostly) data-driven "popular" shortlist, based on a scan of public code + application of (mostly?) objective rules to the outcome of that scan.
To maintain OSI's reputation as being (reasonably) neutral and independent, OSI should probably avoid basing this on third-party license surveys (e.g., Black Duck<https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses>) unless their methodologies and data sources are well-documented. Ideally someone will write code so that the "survey" can be run by OSI and reproduced by others.
Hard decisions on how to collect and "process" the data will include:
· choice of data sources: What data sources are drawn on? Key Linux distros? GitHub? per-language repos like maven, cpan, npm, etc?
· what are you counting? Projects? (May favor small, throwaway projects?) Lines of code? (May favor the largest, most complex projects?) ... ?
· which license tools? Some scanners are more aggressive in trying to identify something, while others prefer accuracy over comprehensiveness. In 2013 there was no good answer to this, but my understanding is that fossology now has three different scanners, so for OSI's purposes it may be sufficient to take those three and average.
o Could throw in Black Duck or other non-transparent surveys as a fourth, fifth, etc.?
· new versions? If a new version exists but isn't widely adopted yet, how does the list reflect that? e.g., MPL 1.1 still shows up in Black Duck's survey; should OSI replace 1.1 with 2.0 in the "processed" list? What about GPL v2 v. v3? BSD/MIT v. UPL?
· gaps/"mistakes": What happens when the board thinks the data is incorrect? :) e.g., should ISC be listed?
Part of why we didn't go very far in 2013 is because there are no great answers for these - different answers will reflect different values, and have different engineering impact. They're all hard choices for the board, the developers, hopefully license-discuss, and perhaps a broader community.
Hat tip: Daniel German was invaluable to me in thinking through these questions.
Supplementing with high-quality, value-adding options
To encourage progress, while still avoiding proliferation, I'd suggest a second list of licenses that are good but not (yet?) popular. "Good" would be defined as something like:
1. meets the OSD
2. isn't on the data-driven popularity list
3. drafted by an attorney (at minimum) or by a collaborative, public drafting process with clear support from a sponsoring-maintaining organization (ideal)
4. has a new "feature" that is firmly in keeping with the overall goals of open source and can be concisely explained in a few sentences (e.g., for UPL, "GPL-compatible permissive license with explicit patent grant")
1. but not "just for a particular community" - has to be at least plausible applicable to most open source projects
2. this is unavoidably subjective; suggest having it fall to the board with pre-discussion on license-review.
#4 allows for some innovation (and OSI support of such innovation) while #3 applies a quality filter. (Both #3 and #4 have anti-proliferation effects.) Hopefully licenses that meet #3 and #4 would eventually move into #2, but you could imagine placing a time limit on this list; if you're not in the top 10 most popular within five years, then you get retired? But not sure that's a good idea at all - just throwing it out as one option.
If a new license meets #1, but not #3 and #4, then OSI's formal policy should be to approve, but bury it in one of the other proliferation list groups. (Those groups are actually quite good, and should be fairly non-controversial — once you have a good policy for what gets in the more "favored" groups.) I don't think a new "deprecated" group is necessary - the proliferation categories are basically a good list of that already.
This is still a somewhat subjective process, and if it had been in place in '99-'06, it would have been fairly fraught. However, I think most of the "action" in open source organization has moved on to other areas (e.g., foundation structure, CoCs, etc.), and the field has matured in other ways, so I think this is now a practicable approach in ways it would not have been a decade or even five years ago.
Miscellaneous notes
· I don't recommend merely updating the existing "popular and..." list through a subjective or one-time process. The politics of that will be messy, and without a documented, mostly-objective, data-driven method, it'll again become an outdated mess.
· The OSD should probably be updated. At the least this should be by addressing things like whether a formal patent grant is required of new licenses; more ambitiously it might follow Open Data Definition 2.x<http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/> by splitting out open licenses from open works.
· With SPDX and Fedora providing more comprehensive lists of FOSS licenses, it might make sense for OSI to link to those as "extended" resources, to reduce pressure from obscure license authors to get their license approved.
· The biggest pressure on this process will continue to be licenses that try to open up space for new commercial business models (e.g., Fair Source). The more OSI can write/document/buttress OSD #1, the better.
· I used to think a license wizard was a good idea, but I don't any more. I thought copyleft spectrum was really the only important decision-making factor, which made the idea plausible, but non-copyleft factors matter much more than I once thought, and make simplifying to a "wizard" too hard for OSI (though perhaps still plausible for a third party).
· Documentation of what the copyleft spectrum is, what the key licenses on it are, and what other factors might be relevant, is still a good idea, but are secondary to getting the basic lists right.
HTH-
Luis
--
Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy<http://lu.is>
+1-415-938-4552
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org>
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170407/5bca108c/attachment.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list