<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Question on OSD #5</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText8984 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Matthew Flaschen </FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>>>Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<BR><BR>>As noted many a time, this argument can be made for any restriction.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>An already approved restriction for very much the same concerns and the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>same general group (academic institutions).</FONT></DIV></FONT><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial>>> I dunno how you would hold them accountable for something I might<BR>>> choose to do.<BR><BR>> I wouldn't hold them accountable, I would hope the OSI board would hold<BR>> /you/ "accountable", as in "be a little disappointed and maybe not as<BR>> convinced by the 'it's temporary' argument in the future".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR><FONT face=Arial>>> Nor am I sure why you would want to preclude or even<BR>>> frown upon on someone using an OSI approved license...<BR><BR>>There's a whole category of licenses (actually, at least three<BR>>categories: "Special Purpose Licenses", "Non-reusable licenses",<BR>>"Licenses that have been voluntarily retired") listed at<BR>></FONT><A href="http://opensource.org/licenses/category"><FONT face=Arial>http://opensource.org/licenses/category</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial> that OSI discourages use of.<BR>>Educational Community License is on the Special Purpose List.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Oddly ECL v2.0 is not on the category list. The category list is somewhat out</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>of date...and honestly not too useful. There seems no implication that folks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>shouldn't use Special Purpose Licenses if they happen to have the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>same special purposes. Non-reusable licenses and retired licenses make</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>sense to be less re-usable by definition.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>I know your dim view of NOSA from your actions on Wikipedia. </FONT><FONT face=Arial>Sorry, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>but I also contribute under NOSA without the express permission of the </FONT><FONT face=Arial>OSI </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>board. So I guess I am an unrepentant and repeat special purpose license </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>offender.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>There may be users of ECL that have not reported back to the Sakai </FONT><FONT face=Arial>folks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>ECL v1 is not listed as retired on the list.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial><BR>>This problem is solved with GPL or MS-RecL (assuming you overlook the<BR>>file-based weakness). The only "problem" you haven't solved is putting<BR>>a limited patent grant in a reciprocal license, and I think OSI's<BR>>reluctant to do that, based on past experience with the BIPL.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>That's fine and my intent with asking was to determine what that response</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>would be. The discussion has been very interesting and I am unlikely to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>recommend submitting a reciprocal variant for approval.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR><FONT face=Arial>>> Prior to the Bayh-Dole Act it was a lot more informal...<BR><BR>>And it still is, in practice. I can give you a dozen examples of people<BR>>using the MIT license (which does have a patent grant, whether people<BR>>like it or not) without their institution's explicit approval.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>A lot of folks break the rules. I suggest you might not be so approving</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>if they were breaking the GPL's rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>That some folks break rules doesn't mean that it is not a concern or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>that the rules don't exist.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR><FONT face=Arial>>That's a valid goal, but it doesn't require a new license.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Evidently not. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>I will ask Chris Coppla if Sakai prefers that I not reuse </FONT><FONT face=Arial>the ECL </FONT><FONT face=Arial>v2. </FONT><FONT face=Arial>If so </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>then </FONT><FONT face=Arial>I will forego recommending an OSI license. Currently </FONT><FONT face=Arial>the process here </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>is to release under the JHU/APL Open Source Agreement. It is </FONT><FONT face=Arial>not OSI </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>approved so it might have been nice to move to an OSI approved license </FONT><FONT face=Arial>in </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>general. One named the Educational Community License seems applicable </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>and </FONT><FONT face=Arial>I've always liked Apache anyway. I'd be pretty happy to not have to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>reinvent </FONT><FONT face=Arial>the wheel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>If there IS some expectation that no one else would use the ECL v2 then it would</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>have been better to call it the Sakai/Kuali License and stick it in the Non-Reusable </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>section.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>However I will be dissapointed not to be able to reuse both their license and </FONT><FONT face=Arial>CLA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Personally, I feel that for the educational community they have addressed many</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>common concerns and have an effective modern license that is by design as </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>mainstream as possible while meeting the concerns of academic institutions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Its also really easy to understand: "This is Apache with this one change".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>ECL v2 should not be relegated to some secondary, merely tolerated, status that </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>no one else should use. I hope this is not the position of the OSI.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>Nigel</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>