License Committee Report for September 2009

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Sep 2 00:37:57 UTC 2009


I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion.  The OSI board will
be meeting September 2nd.

--

Title: MXM Public license 
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:717:chenjkbbnllffijebmno
License: in the submission
Comments: Matthew says no. Chuck says no. Nigel says no. I say
  no. Bruce says no.
Recommend: no approval

--

Title: Signatured-GPL
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:776:ogamklhhmiegammjlgjf
License: in the submission.
Comments: Several commentators suggested that he simply use
  dual-licensing.
Recommend: no approval

--

Title: 36 Open Software License
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:794:ieaabfdiekkhoofbogjd
License: http://36ic.phoenxsoftware.com/36OSL.txt
Comments: Bruce had questions, which didn't get answered.  John
  pointed submittor in the direction of the LGPL.
Recommend: no approval

--

Title: The Azure License
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:800:200908:mclfkcpnkhbkcceokoho
License: neither of the links to the license that he's given are working.
Comments: Dag-Erling points out that the BSD license already requires
attribution in the form of the required copyright notice. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:810:mclfkcpnkhbkcceokoho
Recommend: no approval; that we point him in the direction of the BSD license.

--

Title: Falcon Programming Language License
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:826:naokadpjdjicihdgloog
License: http://www.falconpl.org/index.ftd?page_id=license_1_1
Comments: Clearly OSD-compatible but ... it's the GPL with an added
  freedom to embed the language interpreter creating a single work
  without invoking the terms of the GPL.  If that were it, then we
  could leave it there, but Giancarlo adds required attribution above
  and beyond that required by the GPL.
Recommend: discussion has been insufficient to justify approval at
  this time.




More information about the License-review mailing list