[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

Thu Feb 16 14:00:21 UTC 2017

Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? 
That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, 
would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL?  In my 
opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore 
should care more about such situations.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:04 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Because there is often a compatibility discussion with new license 
> submissions and because the confusion among developers regarding
> OSS license compatibility comes up about once a year.
>
> For example in 2013 it was brought up in the discussion on NOSA 2.0
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html 
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html 
>  >
>
> And a major objective of EUPL 1.2 was for increased interoperability between 
> EUPL and other licenses
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html 
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html 
>  >
>
> And more recently for LiLiQ there was discussion on its' compatibility with 
> CDDl and MPL
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html 
> < Caution-
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html >
>
> And I brought up compatibility between the recently proposed ESA licenses 
> and NOSA.
>
> And incompatibility is mentioned as part of the proliferation project:
>
>
> 1.	...
> 2.	some licenses do not play well together
> 	Some people use "license proliferation" to refer to the fact that some open 
> source licenses do not inter-operate well with other
> open source licenses. While we can urge people not to mix non-mixable 
> licenses, we cannot keep people from doing so. This comment
> generally came from larger companies.
>
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation < 
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation >
>
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation-report < 
> Caution-https://opensource.org/proliferation-report >
>
> In what way is license interoperability/compatibility ONLY a FSF issue and 
> not also an OSI one?
>
>
> From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org < 
> Caution-mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org > >
> Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 5:56 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org <license-discuss at opensource.org < 
> Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org > >
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
>
> License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific doctrine. I 
> can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to provide
> guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the OSI 
> occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > So what is the point of the OSI if it cannot do a simple up or down vote 
> > on a license submission from NASA after 3 years or provide any
> compatibility guidance on the licenses it managed to approve in the distant 
> past?
> >
> > Especially if the FSF has no problems in providing such guidance?
> >
> > From: David Woolley
> > <forums at david-woolley.me.uk<Caution-mailto:forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
> > >
> > Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 4:17 PM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > <license-discuss at opensource.org<Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensou
> > rce.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent
> >
> > On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:
> > > Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved 
> > > licenses?
> >
> > I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal
> > advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the
> > other half would only provide in the context of their specific
> > client's circumstances.
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss <
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss <
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > discuss >
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
> < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170216/f0856b93/attachment.p7s>