[License-review] License Committee Report

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:06:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 03:56 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Free Public License 1.0.0
> > =========================
> 
> > OSI has approved thought-experiment licenses before (e.g. the SimPL)
> > as well as licenses that were not used prior to OSI approval (e.g. the
> > UPL). I am not sure how to distinguish the Free Public License from
> > the SimPL (though I am not sure the present-day OSI would be as happy
> > to approve it) or the UPL. Or rather I *do*, but it would somehow be
> > to point out that Christian Bundy (evidently, judging from his
> > LinkedIn profile, a web developer who graduated from high school in
> > 2011) is not a law professor (like Bob Gemulkiewicz) or a former legal
> > counsel and present or former executive at at a major IT company (like
> > Gemulkiewicz and Jim Wright).
> 
> What about a non-proliferation objection?  That is, does the FPL offer
> anything which can not already be accomplished with either the SimPL or CC0?

Well, CC0 was withdrawn before it could be formally considered for
approval, and SimPL doesn't have the features of the FPL (it purports
to be a GPL-like license and requires notice preservation).

So actually there doesn't seem to be any proliferation concern with
FPL. I think there's no other OSI-approved license like it. At most
one could argue that you could achieve what FPL seeks to achieve
through additional permissions, but that argument would imply that we
have no need for noncopyleft licenses (for example).

> If you're moving towards approval on this one, then some legal mind
> needs to review its provisions for applicability.  Specifically, the
> license claims that its terms apply even when no copy of the license is
> present, or even if no copy has been present for several generations of
> copying.

I'm not sure it does claim that. 

> The lawyers on this list who reviewed that provision found it
> legally dubious, which means that before approval it needs additional
> legal review.

IAAL FWIW (and may be more skeptical about the value of legal review
than you are) but I will mention this to the board if FPL is
discussed.

The same issue is raised by the much-admired CC0, which probably
(given what I know of Creative Commons) was drafted in close
consultation with one or more lawyers with particular expertise in
copyright law.

Richard