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

Hadrien G. knights_of_ni at gmx.com
Fri Mar 8 19:08:46 UTC 2013

Thank you for pointing this flaw out!

The overall goal which I want to achieve is that if someone takes the 
software, or a nontrivial subset of it, and redistributes it or uses it 
as a basis to build a new product, then the source redistribution 
condition should apply. Is the notion of derivative works appropriate to 
this end? Would it cover more or less use cases?

Thanks in advance,

Le 08/03/2013 04:08, Bruce Perens a écrit :
> This only works in the Sleepycat license because Sleepycat is a 
> library. But we'd have better language for that case today.
> Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>     That paragraph in the OSD is regarding simple aggregation rather
>     than components of a single program.
>     The problem is that "makes use of" is not clear. Is it part of the
>     same program? Is it a derivative work? Does it just make use of
>     the program in the way a client makes use of a server over a
>     remote connection?
>     This is sufficient reason for the license to be sent back for
>     rewriting.
>     Thanks
>     Bruce
>     Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>         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
>         License.
>         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
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         License-review mailing list
>         License-review at opensource.org
>         http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> -- 
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130308/478c0ae2/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list