[License-review] [Bulk] Re: Request for Approval : Modular Open-source Software License (MOSL)

[Hadrien Grasland]

On 09/25/2012 10:19 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 12:59 PM, Hadrien Grasland wrote:
>>
>> Pretty much, but not quite. For derivative works, I also want that 
>> additional licensing terms on derivative works do not alter the 
>> meaning of the original terms. This is why I think that the "provided 
>> that the following conditions are met" formulation from the Sleepycat 
>> license is so interesting : it seems to guarantee exactly this.
> This depends on "must be freely redistributable under reasonable 
> conditions", which you indicated your intent to remove. That's the 
> only part that controls the license conditions of derivative works.

How did it depend on that ? Said "reasonable conditions" were actually 
not clarified any further in the original text. As such, in my view, 
this part did not actually specify anything on the conditions in which 
source code must be redistributed. Instead, it introduced a legal 
loophole, allowing someone to impose arbitrary requirements on source 
code redistribution, as long as he can think of an explanation of what 
would make them "reasonable". And considering that we're dealing with a 
subjective concept here, it probably wouldn't be too hard. This is why I 
thought that it would be best to get rid of this part altogether.


Now, to get back to your point that without this sentence, derivative 
works are not bound by the terms of the original work's license, it 
seems to me that they should because they constitute a modified form of 
the original work, which is explicitly protected by the original wording :

"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:"

If, however, you think that whether a derivative work is the same as a 
modified version of the original work is debatable (and it may indeed be 
the case), then the wording should indeed be extended to remove any 
ambiguity. This could be done, as an example, by explicitly using the 
GPL's extremely broad notion of a derivative work, which is that of a 
work based on the original work. In which case the introductory sentence 
would become...

"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, of the licensed work 
or a work based on it, are permitted provided that the following 
conditions are met:"

Would you agree that this version should work as I expect it to ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120925/429c597b/attachment.html>