[License-review] License Committee Report - for board meeting of 2013-04-03

[Hadrien G.]

A few updates on my part regarding the MOSL's situation...

I have since proposed a fourth working draft ( 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-January/000505.html 
), which removed the unnecessary "unless agreed to in writing" part from 
the disclaimer.

Following the comments of Richard Fontana and Bruce Perens regarding OSD 
9 compliance, I have also proposed ( 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000538.html 
) a wording change which follows Bruce Perens' suggestion of a GPL-like 
wording, so as to clarify which software is covered by the license.

I have not received any comment on the updated wording for more than two 
weeks, so I can only guess that it means no one has a problem with it. 
Assuming this is the case, here's a fifth working draft which includes it.

===

**************************************************
***    Modular Open Software License (MOSL)    ***
***       Working Draft 5, 11 March 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 the software, and any accompanying work that is based on 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 28/03/2013 15:10, Luis Villa a écrit :
> 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 before the meeting of April 3rd.
>
> 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.
>
> Recommendation: Board should approve.
>
> EUPL 1.2
> =======
>
> Submission: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000540.html
>
> Comments: John Cowan reviewed the changes to the (earlier-approved)
> versions of the EUPL, and found nothing objectionable.
>
> Recommendation: Board should approve.
>
> MOSL (working draft 3)
> =================
> Submission: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-January/000505.html
>
> Comments: Richard Fontana and Bruce Perens objected to current
> language on redistribution as a violation of OSD 9.
>
> Recommendation: Not accept at this time.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review