AW: For Approval: The netX Public Lisense (in plain text)

Carlo Piana osi-review at
Sat Oct 30 07:10:01 UTC 2010

On 10/30/2010 09:05 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
> On 10/29/2010 07:55 PM, Christian Solmecke wrote:
>> In addition we would ask you, if it makes any difference, if we prospectively would do not distinguish between the styles of interfaces. Accordingly, ANY changes of the program - regardless of whether the changes affect the Kernel or not - must be uploaded to a website. Although this would be a much stricter handling, in our opinion the requirement of the technological neutrality would be guaranteed. Do you think, this could be a way to resolve the problem concerning the technological neutrality?
>> 2. Mandatory Upload on a website
>> Furthermore we ask ourselves, which provision of the OS-Definition is infringed by the mandatory upload of the changes of the Program, which is demanded by the NetX-Public License.  To our mind, the reference duties concerning any changes and modifications of the Program (in particular concerning the Kernel) according to § 4 clause 1 and 2 netX Public License do not infringe the Open Source Definition. According to # 4 Open Source Definition the License can request the documentation of changes and modifications to the Program in order to preserve the integrity of the author´s source code. 
>> Perhaps we can overcome your concerns, if the licensor engages himself to provide another suitable website, in case the website www.industrialNETworX goes away. 
> I urge the submitting entity any reference to the mandatory upload on a
> website to remove from the license, and to consider an alternative
> obligation to distribute the code along with the product or -- at the
> contributor sole option -- to make it available through an at-the-time
> convenient and reliable publicly available Internet resource or equivalent.

The sentence quoted above has a cut & paste artifact, it should read: "I
urge the submitting entity to remove any reference to the mandatory
upload on a website from the license."



> Carlo Piana
> PS: as in all previous submissions, this does not necessarily represent
> the view of the FSFE

More information about the License-review mailing list