For Approval: Transitive Grace Period Public Licence, v1.0

[Simon Phipps]

On Dec 15, 2008, at 14:35, zooko wrote:

>  my primary aim in submitting this licence for approval is to  
> certify that the licence is open source, not to certify that it is a  
> good idea.

These days I believe the OSI Board is also interested in reasons why a  
proposed license is a good idea in addition to meeting the OSD. If  
Larry's assertion that the same ends you're anticipating can be met  
just with exceptions is true, that would suggest the license is not  
suitable for OSI approval on grounds of proliferation.

> This is the reason why TGPPL needs to be a separate licence: it  
> imposes the added burden

Larry in fact said that for the copyright holder to waive a condition  
of OSL 3.0 was the /removal/ of a burden, implying the re-appearance  
of the condition at the end of the copyright-holder's chosen period  
would not be the imposition of a burden. Larry's assertion, which  
appears sound, was that this could thus be achieved by a copyright- 
holder's license exception.

Did you in fact consider the approach of using exceptions to an  
existing license like OSL 3.0 before submission? If so I'd be  
interested in why they don't work for you.

S.