[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License
chrisjones at spin.net.au
Tue Jan 19 23:24:31 UTC 2016
Not having this license approved would demonstrate (again) the lack of
clear and consistent initiative by the OSI to understand and approve new
I see too many of these examples.
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:22:40 +0000
> From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License
> Message-ID: <D2C26A87.286D2%Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Is there any reason then to approve this license if the FSF does not
> explicitly state it is GPL V2 compatible?
> Why guess? There¹s no point in approving a niche license that doesn¹t
> actually fulfill its niche.
> My opinion is step 1 is to submit to the FSF for approval rather than
> the OSI since it appears it passes here other than for proliferation.
> If the FSF publically says it¹s GPL v2 compatible then approval here
> should be relatively straightforward.
> On 1/18/16, 3:32 AM, "License-review on behalf of Mark Wielaard"
> <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >> McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay
> >> FOSS license. But AFL 3.0 did that very thing 10 years ago. The only
> >> reason for AFL 3.0 not being accepted generally for that same purpose
> >> is the FSF's complaint, "contains contract provisions." That kind of
> >> quasi-legal balderdash is directly relevant to what McCoy and others
> >> want to do.
> >> And if AFL 3.0 isn't satisfactory for some random reason, then use
> >> the Apache 2.0 license.
> >Sorry Larry, but these are impractical suggestions wrt reviewing the
> >license submission and intent of the BSD + Patent License. The AFLv3
> >is GPL incompatible because it contains contract provisions requiring
> >distributors to obtain the express assent of recipients to the license
> >terms. The extra restrictions making ASLv2 incompatible with GPLv2 have
> >already been discussed. Both are clearly documented cases of expressly
> >incompatible licenses by the GPL license steward the FSF. I understand
> >your desire to mention your disagreement with the license steward and
> >discuss alternative legal interpretations of what it means to be
> >compatible with the GPL then what might be generally accepted and
> >used in practice. But it is offtopic and not a very constructive
> >discussion in the context of this license submission, which doesn't
> >contain any of those extra restrictions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review