[License-review] Outstanding license submissions, NNOSL

[Love Nystrom]

Hello Colleagues,

In case the No Nonsense Open Source License
(aka No Profiteering Open Source License) would be reconsidered..
The disputed 4th clause was reformulated to,  hopefully, be clearer in 
it's intent.

The revised text can be found e.g here:

     http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.net/project/flexamysynth/NNOSL.TXT

Or, for your convenience, I quote it below.
(Note: No offense is intended by the 2012 footnote!)

Best Regards

     Love "Neo" Nystrom
     Artist and FOSS developer at large

[quote]

NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE

     (aka. No Profiteering Open Source License)

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

(*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

(*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
    
(*) Neither the name of the copywriter(s) nor the names of any contributors
     other than yourself may be used to endorse or promote products derived
     from this work without specific prior written permission.

(*) Except for Your own efforts, You may not demand payment for this work
     without written permission from the original author(s).

     Explanation, 4th clause:

     You may f.ex. charge for Your own efforts if You include this work in derivative
     works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable charge for the distribution
     media and mailing cost if You send a disk containing the work to a 3rd party,
     but You may not charge for this work itself without written permission from
     the copywriter(s).

DISCLAIMER:

THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED.

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

(
     Footnote 2012:
     This is an open source license, though not ratified by the OSI,
     because OSI will not acknowledge a license that forbids 3rd parties
     from profiteering on other people's work without compensation.
     Caveat Emptor.
)

[end quote]


On 2015-06-03 10.47, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Hi license-review,
>
> There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
> that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
> debatable.
>
> 1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source
> Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in
> fact).
>
> I intend to post something separately about this one.
>
>
> 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the
> point of this list's hosting on opensource.org, i.e. late 2011). I
> believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for
> OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally
> lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was
> acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I
> believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,
> particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a
> troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is
> likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,
> say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.
>
>
> No Nonsense Open Source License
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html