[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

[Moritz Maxeiner]

Thank you very much for the explanation.

On Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:55:16 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I agree with McCoy. "Grants" and "obligations" aren't necessarily
> separate concepts. I can say "I grant you a license with a scope of XYZ"
> or I can say "I grant you a license" and under "obligations" say "You
> can't use it outside the scope of XYZ." These have the same result but
> are stated different ways. As currently written your grants and
> obligations are inconsistent.
> 
> Under US law, it's probably better to make your grants conditional
> rather than state the desired result as a separate obligation. For
> example, if you say "you are granted a license provided you give the
> licensee a copy of the source code," the failure to provide source code
> is more likely to be considered a copyright infringement. If you say
> "You are granted a license." "You have an obligation to provide source
> code." it is more likely that the court will sever the two and not
> consider the failure to provide source code a copyright infringement,
> just a breach of contract.
> 
> These are things a lawyer can help you with.
> 
> Pam
> 
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
> 
> On 8/8/2019 1:47 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code.
> > The patent grants are also inconsistent as between the preamble and the
> > grant itself.
> > 
> > You really should be working with a legal person on this if you're serious
> > about it; there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language
> > inconsistencies in all the drafts you have presented so far on this
> > mailing list.  People of course are welcome to comment if they so choose
> > but I'm not sure I see a reason for anyone to spend the time given these
> > issues seem to persist as your drafts continue to evolve.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss
> > [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz
> > Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17 AM
> > To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License
> > 
> > Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from Contribution Public License
> > (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL). I've also slightly reordered the
> > license text for (what I think makes for) easier reading. Attached in
> > plaintext is the new draft.
> > 
> > Thanks for your time,
> > Moritz
> > 
> > On Saturday, 3 August 2019 23:48:38 CEST you wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> 
> >> due to me being unable to find a reciprocal software license I'm truly
> >> happy with I've been working on developing my own:
> >> 
> >> https://github.com/MoritzMaxeiner/contribution-public-license/blob/mas
> >> ter/
> >> LICENSE.org
> >> 
> >> I would - eventually - like to submit the license for OSI approval,
> >> but thought sharing it here, with this mailing list's audience, in
> >> order to gather feedback beforehand would be prudent.
> >> The current draft is attached in plain text as LICENSE.txt and the
> >> license it in turn is under (due to it being derived from the Patches
> >> Back Public
> >> License) is attached in plain text as CHANGING.
> >> 
> >> What I wanted was a license that's as close as possible in spirit to
> >> the MIT license, except requiring any modifications to the software to
> >> be contributed back to the public under the same license.
> >> After looking over the list of OSI-approved licenses there were three
> >> I could identify as being close to what I want, so here are my reasons
> >> as to why they aren't satisfactory for me:
> >> 
> >> Reciprocal Public License (RPL-1.5):
> >> It's not only too long and complex for my purposes, but it also
> >> explicitly defers arbitration to Colorado, USA, which I cannot accept.
> >> 
> >> Eiffel Forum License, Version 2
> >> While being sensibly short and concise it only encourages - but does
> >> not require - modified versions to be publicly released.
> >> 
> >> Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL)
> >> It's copy-left for things such as static linking, containers, etc.
> >> (section 3, paragraph A) and it deals with patents and trademarks.
> >> 
> >> I hope the above highlights that there's a particular niche that's not
> >> quite filled yet.
> >> 
> >> Thank you for your time,
> >> 
> >>   Moritz
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensou
> > rce.org
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc
> e.org