[License-discuss] Proposal of new new open-source license for graphics (TERO-GL-1.0)

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Morten,

I think your proposed license is rooted in a misunderstanding of the OSD,
including by your legal advisors - next time it might be a good idea to
hire someone with more backing in Open Source. Where US attorneys are
concerned I recommend Heather Meeker,  and can connect you if necessary. I
consult, as do other people on this list. IMO the best path would be the
one I last suggested - reduce the complexity of the images and give them
away, after all someone could easily make a 3D mesh of an existing robot
within fair use and publish it, one can do that almost instantly these
days,.

Since I put a few hours into reviewing your texts, as probably did Josh as
well, it would be nice to hear an acknowledgement of our comments and
perhaps what path you think you will now pursue.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 8:16 AM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> Agreed. But I couldn't actually find the text that implemented that
> requirement.
>
> Bruce Perens K6BP
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 16:11 Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>
>> Morten,
>>
>> > I am representing Teradyne Robotics A/S, a division of Teradyne inc.
>> > (https://www.teradyne.com/ <https://www.teradyne.com/>), that provides
>> > robot arms (https://www.universal-robots.com/ <https://www.universal-
>> > robots.com/>) and autonomous mobile robots (https://mobile-industrial-
>> > robots.com/ <https://mobile-industrial-robots.com/>).
>>
>> While I haven't reviewed the text of the license, there seems to be a
>> core purpose of the license that's at odds with open source requirements:
>>
>>  > The main goal was to find a license that would allow third parties to
>> use these models in simulation environments while not allowing them to
>> manufacture physical products based on them.
>>
>> That's a clear violation of OSD6 ("no discrimination against fields of
>> endeavor"), as far as I can tell, and explains why you couldn't find an
>> existing open source license that suited your purpose.  This is very
>> similar to "no commercial use" licenses that are popular with a variety
>> of entities; those can be open-ish, but they are not open source.
>>
>> It sounds like what you want is more of a "shared source" license, or
>> even an agreement, for your association.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Berkus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251031/918a53fb/attachment.htm>