<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>Because there is often a compatibility discussion with new license submissions and because the confusion among developers regarding OSS license compatibility comes up about once a year.<br>
<br>
For example in 2013 it was brought up in the discussion on NOSA 2.0
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And a major objective of EUPL 1.2 was for increased interoperability between EUPL and other licenses</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And more recently for LiLiQ there was discussion on its' compatibility with CDDl and MPL</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And I brought up compatibility between the recently proposed ESA licenses and NOSA.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And incompatibility is mentioned as part of the proliferation project:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<ol class="x_alpha" style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:10px; list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li style="list-style-type:decimal; padding-top:0.5em"><span style=""><span style="font-weight:700">...</span></span></li><li style="list-style-type:decimal; padding-top:0.5em"><span style=""><span style="font-weight:700">some licenses do not play well together</span>
<br style="">
Some people use "license proliferation" to refer to the fact that some open source licenses do not inter-operate well with other open source licenses. While we can urge people not to mix non-mixable licenses, we cannot keep people from doing so. This comment
generally came from larger companies.</span></li></ol>
<div><a href="https://opensource.org/proliferation">https://opensource.org/proliferation</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://opensource.org/proliferation-report">https://opensource.org/proliferation-report</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In what way is license interoperability/compatibility ONLY a FSF issue and not also an OSI one?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="x_gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 5:56 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>license-discuss@opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org">license-discuss@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent</span></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific<br>
doctrine. I can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to<br>
provide guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the<br>
OSI occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<br>
> So what is the point of the OSI if it cannot do a simple up or down vote on a license submission from NASA after 3 years or provide any compatibility guidance on the licenses it managed to approve in the distant past?<br>
> <br>
> Especially if the FSF has no problems in providing such guidance?<br>
> <br>
> From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk<mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk>><br>
> Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 4:17 PM<br>
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>><br>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent<br>
> <br>
> On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote:<br>
> > Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved licenses?<br>
> <br>
> I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal<br>
> advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the<br>
> other half would only provide in the context of their specific client's<br>
> circumstances.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> License-discuss@opensource.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss">
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> License-discuss@opensource.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss">
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
License-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>