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

[Russell McOrmond]

I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt
to restrict private modification.  Many countries are starting to recognise
the harm of claiming restrictions on private copying under copyright, so
this reads as an attempt to circumvent in contract law a limitation or
exception of copyright law.

I believe any such attempts to circumvent limits and exceptions to
copyright violate the intent of FLOSS even when not clearly understood to
violate the language of the OSD.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 13:48 Moritz Maxeiner <mm at ucw.sh> wrote:

> 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/master/
> > 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.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190808/52ab766b/attachment.html>