For Approval: SSCL

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

See in line, Best regards
Patrice-E. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregor Pintar [mailto:lightbit8 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: For Approval: SSCL
> 
> 2010/6/30, Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel <patrice-
> emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com>:
> > In my humble opinion, the main issue is not licence proliferation
> itself,
> > which we may all regret, but which is a definitive fact (with 1,800
> F/OSS
> > licenses tracked by BlackDuck in January 2010 !). The main issue is the
> lack
> > of compatibility or interoperability between copyleft licenses, because
> it
> > makes impossible the distribution of larger solutions (combined works).
> >
> > Therefore, if any new license is copyleft (and it seems to be your case,
> as
> > redistribution must reproduce the licence), it is important to add or
> > clarify with something like this: "This license makes no obstacle to the
> > integration of the source code as a component of a larger collective or
> > combined work, when this work is distributed as a whole under the terms
> of
> > another OSI-approved copyleft license".
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Patrice-E. Schmitz
> > Legal counsel - www.osor.eu
> 
> Compatibility would be nice, but if someone takes the source code into
> combined work, which is licensed under GPL for example, I can't get
> improvements back into my project.

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel] I do not think so: The purpose of interoperability provisions is to remove incompatibility barriers in the specific case of distribution of combined works "as a whole", but it is not to change the primary license that is applicable to each component (covering also the possible improvements done to these components). 
Without interoperability, your licence will add to the proliferation of incompatible copyleft licenses: your request to apply your license to all programs "which depend" on the source (= derivative works, which includes the sub-category of combined works) will enter in conflict with other licenses (GPL etc.) in case of combined works.
> 
> 2010/6/29, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>:
> > The big hurdle for a license like this is that it doesn't cause license
> > proliferation without justification. Look at the licenses that already
> > have similar effects and are not too long.
> 
> I did look at Simple Public Licence, but it permits to redistribute it
> under GPLv2, so I can't get improvements back into my project.
> 
> fixed (I hope it's better now) licence:
> 
> Copyright (c) years, Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>
> 
> Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute,
> this source code and binary programs derived from this source code,
> provided that the following conditions are met:
> 
> - Redistributions of this source code, must retain this licence text
>    and all copyright notices without alteration.
> 
> - Redistributions of binary programs which depend on this source code must
>    reproduce this licence text and all copyright notices in the
> documentation,
>    which must be distributed with binary programs.
> 
> - If the binary program depend on a modified version of this source code,
>    you must to publicly release the modified version of this source code
>    under this license.
> 
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTY. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES
> ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help.