[License-review] Approval Request: Free Public License 1.0.0

[Christian Bundy]

That's great, thanks for the update Richard. I'd also be interested to hear
more about the viewpoints of the outside legal counsel, if it's available.

Thanks to everyone on this list for discussing the FPL and hashing out the
details of this license before it was brought up at the board meeting.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:46 PM Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:48:43AM +0000, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > We (Fraction) would like to formally submit the Free Public License for
> OSI
> > approval. The FPL is a permissive license designed to allow anyone do
> anything
> > (except hold anyone liable).
>
> The Free Public License 1.0.0 has been approved by the OSI Board.
>
> In response to several comments from the license-review community
> concerning the FPL, the OSI obtained outside legal counsel concerning
> the legal and policy issues raised by 'ultra-permissive' licenses like
> the FPL which do not impose conditions on the licensee (particularly
> notice-preservation conditions).
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >     Free Public License 1.0.0
> >
> >     Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
> >     any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
> >
> >     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
> >     WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES
> >     OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE
> LIABLE
> >     FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY
> >     DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
> WHETHER IN
> >     AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING
> OUT
> >     OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> >
> >
> > Public domain dedications are attractive to anyone who needs something
> more
> > permissive than traditional licenses like the MIT license, but they're
> > inherently problematic. Public license fallbacks in the CC0 and
> Unlicense were
> > designed to solve this problem, but it seems like the best solution
> would be an
> > ultimately permissive public license.
> >
> > The FPL is a modified ISC license that removes both the copyright notice
> and
> > the requirement that "...the above copyright notice and this permission
> notice
> > appear in all copies." While there's only a small textual difference
> between
> > the two licenses, removing the copyright notice and copyright
> requirement solve
> > the problem of software public domain dedication.
> >
> > There hasn't been any external legal review or legal analysis of the
> FPL, as
> > the only changes were the two removals mentioned above.
> >
> > The FPL's license proliferation category would most likely be "Other/
> > Miscellaneous"
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to review this license for approval.
> >
> > Christian Bundy
> > Fraction
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.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/20151113/a03591e6/attachment.html>