<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>[In response to Kevin, I have changed the subject.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I appreciate learning John Cowan's opinion about the "commons" that is/are created by open source licenses, but I wish to differ from his conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Almost all copyleft licenses are <u>compatible with each other</u> for aggregations ("collective works") because of OSD #1 ("the license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources"). But none of them are compatible with each other for <u>joint</u> "derivative works" without dual licensing. Fortunately, such joint derivative works are exceedingly rare in practical computer programming. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>This entirely compatible commons includes software under the MPL, Eclipse PL, LGPL, and OSL 3.0 licenses. For those licenses, there is only <u>one</u> commons. This is true even if you link the programs statically or dynamically, use class inheritance, or even (if the Supreme Court agrees) copy header files and standard software APIs from one licensed copyleft program to another. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>The only exceptions are the GPL/AGPL licenses. These create separate commons that are incompatible with other licenses ONLY because the licenses are interpreted by FSF to include static linking and other forms of independent program interaction as a form of derivative work rather than of simple aggregation. This is an FSF license interpretation problem, not an actual problem based on copyright law. FSF is entitled to interpret their own licenses, but not to foist those interpretations on other licenses. They can choose to reject the <u>one</u> open source commons software for their own licenses but not for others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Despite what John says, you can aggregate the <u>one</u> open source commons created by MOST copyleft (and permissive) licenses to your heart's content without fear. Bravo for open source!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Best, /Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 31, 2019 8:27 AM<br><b>To:</b> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Cc:</b> Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>; masson@opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] License licenses<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:11 AM James <<a href="mailto:purpleidea@gmail.com">purpleidea@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>FWIW, I only consider about five different licenses for new projects.<br>Not because they're necessarily better than OSL (I never investigated<br>that deeply) but because I am against license proliferation, and the<br>existing five are good enough. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I have a more specific reason for disliking the OSL. The GPL creates a separate commons from<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>all the permissive open source licenses together because any programs with GPL components<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>must (according to common understanding) be released under the GPL. In fact there are<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>two such commons, one for GPL-2-only and the other for GPL-2-upgradeable plus GPL-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The OSL also creates its own commons, one that is never going to catch up in size and richness<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>with the GPL's. Furthermore, there is a separate commons for the Non-Profit OSL, and apparently<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>for each version of both. Therefore I would always discourage people from using it despite its impeccable<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>FLOSS Buddha-nature. This does *not* apply to the AFL.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>But if 1(c) in both the OSL and the NPOSLwere modified in a new version 4 from:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Open Software License<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>to:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>with the proviso that copies of Original Work shall be licensed under this Open Software License, and Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed either any version of this Open Software License or of the Non-Profit Open Software<br>License or in the alternative under any version of the GNU General Public License<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>(or words to that effect), I would withdraw my objection.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>This can already be achieved on a case-by-case basis by multiple-licensing language like "licensed under the<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>OSL version 3.0 or, at the user's option, under any later version of the OSL, under the GNU GPL version 2, or<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>any later version of the GNU GPL", but most people aren't going to bother with that. I'd like it to be an<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>inherent part of the OSL.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>John Cowan <a href="http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan">http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a><br>Normally I can handle panic attacks on my own; but panic is, at the moment,<br>a way of life. --Joseph Zitt<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>