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

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Fri Mar 8 02:24:46 UTC 2013

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:36:03PM +0100, Hadrien G. wrote:
> 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 :

I would like to raise a question about something in it:

> * 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.

This is similar to thought subtly different from the Sleepycat

I would ask the OSI to consider whether this consistent with OSD 9:

  The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
  distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
  license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
  same medium must be open-source software.

The Sleepycat License may be different because there is a history of
it being treated as not only FOSS but GPL-compatible. 

 - RF

More information about the License-review mailing list