[License-review] License Committee Report - 2013-03-06

[Hadrien G.]

Well, I'd like to add the current MOSL draft to this list, since as far 
as I can tell no one has objected to the current wording for a month :

"**************************************************
***    Modular Open Software License (MOSL)    ***
***      Working Draft 4, 4 February 2013      ***
***  Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Hadrien Grasland  ***
**************************************************

Redistribution and use of this software, or modified forms of it, are 
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain this list of conditions, 
the above copyright notice, and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must include a copy of this list of 
conditions, the above copyright notice, and the following disclaimer, 
whether in documentation or in other provided materials.
* Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how 
to obtain complete source code for this software, and any accompanying 
software that makes use of it. Source code must either be included in 
the distribution, or be available for no more than the cost of its 
distribution. For an executable file, complete source code means the 
source code for all modules it contains, save for modules or files that 
are typically provided with the operating system on which the executable 
file runs.

UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", 
WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS 
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE 
BE LIABLE, FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR 
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, 
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF 
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE."

Le 07/03/2013 07:45, Luis Villa a écrit :
> [After an absence of some time, the board has asked me to resurrect
> the formal license committee reports. This is the first one. Comments
> and suggestions on format, content, etc. are welcome.]
>
> This email is my report for licenses currently submitted to the OSI.
> If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the list's comments or
> conclusions, please say so within the next week.
>
> CeCILL 2.1
> ========
>
> Submission: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000414.html
>
> Comments: Several clarifying questions were asked, indicating the
> license had been read, but no list members challenged the OSD
> compliance of the license itself.
>
> Recommend: Approval
>
> Thanks-
> Luis
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review