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

[Bruce Perens]

The license, as you plan, intentionally gives you the leeway to selectively
enforce a patent should you not like a particular use or user. Because of
this, I just cannot believe that it is sincerely meant to be an Open Source
license. It is meant to fit the rules within your perception of them, no
more

OSI has approved some licenses that they regret, and thus makes it explicit
that what they have approved previously is not a justification for
approving a present license. When we started OSI, no lawyer would help us.
Thus understanding has clearly evolved under time.

Bruce Perens K6BP

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, 12:50 Josh Berkus <josh.berkus at opensource.org> wrote:

> On 11/5/25 4:16 AM, Morten Fruelund wrote:
>  > It is correct that the proposed license, like Clear BSD, for example,
> explicitly does not grant a patent license, whereas many other OSI
> approved open-source licenses remain silent on the issue. Further, some
> OSI-approved licenses contain similar, but of course not identical,
> restrictions on or exclusions from the licenses to various types of IP,
> e.g., RPL-1.5, which states the following in Clause 5.0:
>
> ClearBSD is not an OSI-approved license.
>
> And I knew you were going to mention RPL-1.5.  That license already came
> up in an OSI committee review of old licenses which might not meet our
> current standards for OSD compliance (TBD).  That license was submitted
> at a time when OSI's understanding of the interaction between patent and
> copyright for open source was less mature than it is today (SCO Unix vs.
> Linux was an education for the whole industry).
>
> OSI has been around for almost the whole of open source, and our
> understanding of what exact clauses preserve software freedom, and which
> ones do not, has evolved in that time.  Indeed, if it had not, we would
> have failed in our mission.  This was the reason for adding additional
> information to the license submission process, such as these two
> advisories:
>
>  From https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process
>
> "The license does not have terms that structurally put the licensor in a
> more favored position than any licensee."
>
>  From
> https://opensource.org/licenses/common-reasons-for-rejection-of-licenses
>
> "An express statement that no patent license is granted. The failure to
> grant a patent license means the license fails to meet OSD 6, 7 and 8. A
> license that makes no statement at all about patents may be acceptable,
> depending on whether the way the license grant is expressed can be read
> as an implied grant, e.g., the 3-Clause BSD License that permits “use”
> of the software."
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> OSI Board Member
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> OSI Board Member
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251105/651265a4/attachment.htm>