BSD+1 License

Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com
Wed Apr 7 08:25:18 UTC 2010


Hi Stefano,

As soon a license is copyleft, and made by attorneys, you cannot avoid that it is reasonably long, because of the need:
- to define as clearly as possible each used concept;
- to detail the copyleft obligations of the licensee (he/she has not only rights, but also obligations, in case of re-distribution);
- to clarify compatibility with other copyleft licenses: due to license proliferation, it is not advisable to ignore interoperability when launching a copyleft license;
- to ensure that liability and warranty exclusions have some chances to be accepted by courts in targeted countries;
- to clarify what happens with new licence versions (including new linguistic versions);
- to clarify points like applicable law and competent court.

I believe that it may be a good idea if you publish a kind of "foreword" where you explain your reasons to distribute your software under open source provisions and your expectations concerning your new-born community (how to contact you, to contribute etc.), but it is not recommended to present this as a structured "draft license" because it may be confusing for the reader and introduce contradictions. However, you can add recommendations or preference on how to distribute derivatives, provide it does not enter in conflict with the license and with the 10 OSI principles. 

Best regards,
Patrice-E. Schmitz
Lawyer
www.OSOR.eu

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Vincenzi [mailto:s_vincenzi at lavabit.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:12 AM
To: license-review at opensource.org
Subject: Re: BSD+1 License

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the EUPL. I was reading it and think I  
will use this license.

I don't like that it is too long; this was one of the reasons I wanted  
to make a new license (what I like about the BSD License is its  
simplicity) but at least it is a comfortable and understandable  
reading... better leave the attorneys to write laws =)

Can I publish source code with any license and the draft of my  
"license" as a non-binding comment on licensing? It can act as a  
briefing/summary and a recommendation or preference on how to  
distribute the derivatives... or is that too complicated?

Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel ha scritto:

> Hi Stefano,
>
> I am a little bit confused on this debate (where I stepped in :-)  
> because your first idea was to propose a kind of BSD licence, but -  
> reading it - it is not really a permissive license. In fact your  
> draft is copyleft, because - if I understand your intention  
> correctly - your code cannot become proprietary, even if you do not  
> specify which "other licenses" can be used in the proposed provision:
> "* Source code derived of the original source code, that is  
> distributed as  executable code for commercial use, must be made  
> public using this license and other licenses in which the original  
> source code was made public and distributed".
>
> Then the discussion turn around the strong copyleft GPL... Which one  
> - V2 or V3?
>
> And finally a very important point for you is the availability of  
> the license in languages other than English (you will use Italian,  
> Spanish and English).
>
> Therefore my question: did you consider the EUPL (European Union  
> Public Licence) which is:
> - copyleft (but GPLv2 compatible),
> - written by European attorneys,
> - used by the European Commission,
> - OSI approved and
> - has 22 linguistic versions with identical value?  http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7774
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrice-E. Schmitz
> Lawyer
> www.OSOR.eu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Vincenzi [mailto:s_vincenzi at lavabit.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:31 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: BSD+1 License
>
> What about publishing and using the software license in languages
> other than english (in my case I will use italian, spanish and
> english)? If the local official language is not english how much is an
> english license enforcable? For reference, CC has translations in the
> most used languages (even if the english version takes precedence).
>
> The current clause:
>     * If any software derived from the original source code is
> published and distributed as executable code, the modified source code
> must be included in the distribution or made available by other means
> (including but not limited to: websites and software repositories).
> This applies only to source code derived directly from the original
> software. Source code that is distributed with the original source
> code or executable code that uses it indirectly (including but not
> limited to: an inherited class or an API call), can use any other
> license.
>
> // Bani ha scritto:
>>> By publishing I mean in general, the clause doesn't state "publish
>>> to the
>>> original author". It is implied (I know, bad idea for a license to
>>> use
>>> assumptions) that publishing means making the source code available.
>>>
>>> N/ please reply to the list also so that we don't get 2 identical
>>> posts on
>>> our inbox.
>>
>> Just keep in mind that if the code isn't distributed, then you can't
>> make people publish the code if they don't want to. This has to do
>> with the copyright law in U.S., which doesn't protect "personal" use.
>
> Then the clause should include something like: "if you publish any
> software derived from the original source code, you must include the
> modified source code in the distribution, or make it available by
> other means (including but not limited to: websites and software
> repositories)."





More information about the License-review mailing list