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

[Matthew Flaschen]

zooko wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen also said that the TGPPL v1.0 doesn't require the
> producer of a derived work to provide source code, but I don't think
> this is correct -- TGPPL v1.0 should have the same effect as OSL 3.0 on
> that issue.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, you're correct.  I forgot that OSL uses the contract "style", and
has "Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source
Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that
Licensor distributes."

> This is the reason why TGPPL needs to be a separate licence: it imposes
> the added burden that once the grace period has expired then the
> producer of a derived work needs to release the source code of the
> derived work under the terms of the TGPPL.  The licence does not offer
> the producer of a derived work the option of distributing the derived
> work for a grace period and then open sourcing the derived work under
> some other licence such as GPL or OSL.

Okay, would it be acceptable to allow either OSL derivatives with source
released immediately or TGPPL derviatves with source released in 12
months?  If so, I think it could be written as an exception.
> Bruce Perens wondered whether it was the OSI's mandate to protect the
> writers of open source licences from their own foolishness.  While I
> appreciate criticisms and suggestions -- especially when they are
> delivered respectfully -- 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.

He said, "protect Open Source developers from foolishness in license
writing"  That potentially means protecting the license writer as /well/
as anyone who may use the license because it's OSI-approved.

Matt Flaschen