[License-review] License Committee Report - for board meeting of 2013-11-06 [NASA, EUPL, and Tidepool]

[Engel Nyst]

On 10/30/2013 07:49 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Reminder: if you have comments on NASA or EUPL (Tidepool still has its own
> semi-active thread) now is the time for them :)
>

Thank you. Regarding the language used in 3K, please consider here the 
user perspective, a well intended recipient from any country in the 
world. They receive the text of the license agreement.

The paragraph is in section "3. ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS IF YOU MAKE 
DERIVATIVE WORKS OF OR REDISTRIBUTE THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE".
I'd expect that what is placed under 3 should be an "additional 
obligation"; the others are. The interpretation of paragraph 3K may be, 
I believe reasonably, influenced by this structure of the license text.

Since 3K is arguably not supposed to be an "obligation" by the license, 
I'd suggest merely moving it outside "Additional obligations" would help 
the recipient understand that it's not an obligation.

I'd also suggest a slight relaxation of the language. Such as, the 
license could use the expression "to make a non-binding request" instead 
of "request". It specifies optional only for agencies, which may 
influence reading as well.

The purpose of the two suggestions above is simply to make clear to the 
reader what is intended by this paragraph, as opposed to other 
conditions/obligations of the license.


Admittedly, it's very late in the review process (I'm sorry about that), 
and while the concern on 3K is shared on the list, I'm sending this 
email because this issue touches a core point of Open Source Definition 
(this is no edge case) and I feel the license text could easily be 
simply clearer on it... IMHO it would only help future drafting for 
anyone who takes OSI approved licenses as starting point, and the larger 
public understanding of OSD as implemented in currently approved licenses.