[License-discuss] Discussion request: Open Source Evolution License 0.2

[lemonhub.io at icloud.com]

Hello,

I am a member of OpenReciprocal, writing for OpenReciprocal. I would like comments on a
draft license. This is not a license-review submission, and I am not
asking for an SPDX identifier.

In August I posted an AGPLv3 text with a noncommercial exception, and
then retracted it. Bradley Kuhn and McCoy Smith explained why that
construction does not work: the exception is a further restriction, and
OSI does not approve add-ons to an existing license. This draft is a
different document. It does not modify AGPLv3, it is not an exception
to any existing license, and a noncommercial or field-of-use limit is
not allowed. I am not asking anyone to reopen that thread.

The draft is the Open Source Evolution License, version 0.2:

https://github.com/OpenReciprocal/open-source-evolution-license/blob/af546bf/LICENSES/OSEL-0.2-draft.txt

Please use that commit. I will not edit that file while it is under
discussion.

The idea is one sentence. Any recipient may ship a modified copy under
a stricter OSI-approved license. Those stricter terms stick to that
copy and to copies made from it. No other copy is rewritten.

The grant at the start is permissive. Taking the step is optional, and
only the person who actually ships a modified copy can take it, and
only for the copy they ship. The target must be an unmodified
OSI-approved license. It must keep the notices this draft already
requires, add at least one duty from a fixed menu, and add no duty from
outside that menu. The menu is: further attribution, source and
share-alike, patents, names, and change marks. A step that fails the
test is void. Another copy that merely carries the same version label,
and was not made from the shipment, stays under this draft.

No license is pre-approved as a target. I am not asking the list to
accept GPL, AGPL, Apache, MPL, or EUPL. The person who takes the step
has to show that the text they chose meets the test.

Three questions:

1. Is this a gap, or is the right answer dual licensing, or starting
   the project on MPL or EUPL?

2. Section 1.15 says material taken from a sticky copy is sticky to
   the extent of that material. Section 5.5 says stickiness follows
   the copy, not the version label and not the project. Is that
   boundary usable?

3. Does "unmodified OSI-approved license, plus this menu" avoid a
   catalog of license names, or is the menu a catalog with the names
   left off?

The text has not been reviewed by counsel. I am not a lawyer. No
software project outside this repository uses the draft. Version 0.1
was published on 2026-09-26. Version 0.2 does not amend it. The text
under discussion is 0.2.

Thank you.

OpenReciprocal
https://github.com/OpenReciprocal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20261024/deb43772/attachment.htm>