For Approval: Transitive Grace Period Public Licence, v1.0
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Fri Feb 20 15:24:43 UTC 2009
>From: mdtiemann at gmail.com [mdtiemann at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Tiemann [tiemann at opensource.org]
>I agree. If anybody other than the license submitter has strong arguments
>as to (1) how the TGGPL meets the terms of the OSD in a legally clear and
>understandable way, and (2) why the committee should recommend approval to
>the Board, now would be the time. From my reading of board and non-board
>comments, the TGGPL does not appear to be a candidate for approval.
I am not the submitter and I will try to address #1. It would be helpful if someone
re-pointed out any particular requirements to examine in detail.
I cannot address #2 at the moment since I don't know what the criteria would be.
If we had an OSD compliant category I would recommend we put it there but I
dunno why the license-proliferation work petered out without any movement on
resolving that concern (no I didn't look hard either...perhaps I missed an email).
OSD 1: Free Redistribution - Done in s1 Grant of Copyright License
OSD 2: Code that is released under the TGPPL provides source and allows
distribution of that source in s3 Grant of Source Code License.
Code that has not been released under TGPPL during the 12 month grace period
provided in s1.c does not provide source since it has not yet been released under
TGPPL. However, all previously released code used in the derived code is still
This is no different than code under a permissive license that has been reused in
a proprietary product. The new derivative code is also not released in this situation
while the original code under the permissive license is still available.
However, after 12 months, you MUST release under the TGPPL. After which
all OSD requirements apply since the source code is now available.
OSD 3: Derived works - granted under s1.
OSD 4: Integrity of Author's Source: covered under s4 and s6
OSD 5 & 6: No discrimination: covered by s15 Right To Use is not restricted
OSD 7: Distribution of License: covered by s1 copyright, s2 patent, and s3 source code grants
OSD 8: Not Specific to a Product: no such product is reference in the license
OSD 9: No Restriction of Other Software: no restrictions exist
OSD 10: Tech neutral: no technology requirements are present
Hopefully I do not have to go into detail in areas where the OSL satisfies the OSD where
there are no changes.
In doing the comparison I do have a reason for #2 for the TGPPL that may not apply to
other licenses. In OSL 16.iii he cannot claim that TGPPL is open source at all (not just
OSI approved) without OSI approval even if it is. This is a quirk (or design feature) of
any OSL based licenses that appears to have run headfirst into non-proliferation issues.
If he can't get OSI approval then he needs to scrap TGPPL entirely and look for a new
base and relicense all his code. Is that an OSI problem? Not really except that if we
had a OSD certification it would be a non-issue if it indeed meets OSD requirements.
Is the license unique enough from OSL? Given the discussions I would think more yes
than no and the transitivity cannot be met with just a waiver on OSL.
More information about the License-review