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

Thu Nov 6 13:47:06 UTC 2025

Hi Bruce and Josh

Again, thanks for your feedback and insights. We will review them thoroughly and get back with a reply.

 Best Regards

Morten Fruelund
IPR Manager

Energivej 51
5260 Odense S
Denmark
Cell: +45 28 93 03 22
morten.fruelund at teradyne-robotics.com<mailto:morten.fruelund at teradyne-robotics.com>

[A black and grey logo  Description automatically generated]

Please note that this message may contain confidential information. If you have received this message by mistake,
please inform the sender of the mistake, then delete the message from your system without making,
distributing or retaining any copies of it. Although we believe that the message and any attachments are free
from viruses and other errors that might affect the computer or IT system where it is received and read,
the recipient opens the message at his or her own risk. We assume no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this message.

If Universal Robots A/S processes personal data relating to physical persons, such processing will meet the requirements of applicable data protection legislation.
Please see our Privacy Policy here<https://www.universal-robots.com/about-universal-robots/privacy-policy/>.

________________________________
From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 22:07
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
Cc: Morten Fruelund <morten.fruelund at teradyne-robotics.com>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Proposal of new new open-source license for graphics (TERO-GL-1.0)

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not open attachments or links unless you recognize the sender and the content is safe.

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<mailto: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 [opensource.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process__;!!GenOTVeOfQ!STP7uwsH9U8dcENCcIukLqwGOmaE1JaXHKmtfuHrjtDU2Dwi-eFwdwXm6YdLQQvdL_P6SOtPCSUfLrXqNWboz9rFat0$>

"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 [opensource.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://opensource.org/licenses/common-reasons-for-rejection-of-licenses__;!!GenOTVeOfQ!STP7uwsH9U8dcENCcIukLqwGOmaE1JaXHKmtfuHrjtDU2Dwi-eFwdwXm6YdLQQvdL_P6SOtPCSUfLrXqNWboXKapT2Q$>

"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 [opensource.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://opensource.org__;!!GenOTVeOfQ!STP7uwsH9U8dcENCcIukLqwGOmaE1JaXHKmtfuHrjtDU2Dwi-eFwdwXm6YdLQQvdL_P6SOtPCSUfLrXqNWboYeqIYoA$> email address.

License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org [lists.opensource.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org__;!!GenOTVeOfQ!STP7uwsH9U8dcENCcIukLqwGOmaE1JaXHKmtfuHrjtDU2Dwi-eFwdwXm6YdLQQvdL_P6SOtPCSUfLrXqNWboF7NKn9g$>
________________________________

Please note that this message may contain confidential information. If you have received this message by mistake, please inform the sender of the mistake, then delete the message from your system without making, distributing or retaining any copies of it. Although we believe that the message and any attachments are free from viruses and other errors that might affect the computer or IT system where it is received and read, the recipient opens the message at his or her own risk. We assume no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this message. When we process personal data relating to physical persons, such processing will meet the requirements of applicable data protection legislation and will be in accordance with our Privacy Policy.<https://www.teradyne.com/privacy-statement>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251106/8f566ea4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-A black an.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17311 bytes
Desc: Outlook-A black an.png
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251106/8f566ea4/attachment-0001.png>