[License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval

[Nigel T]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu> wrote:

> On 25/10/2016 18:04, Nigel T wrote:
> > My opinion is that the OSI should be more inclusive of differing
> > opinions within the FOSS community.  That includes licenses that are
> > more friendly for commercial entities to maintain a business model
> > that supports both open and closed source.
>
> I find this statement disturbing in that it suggests that OSI is
> unfriendly to dual-licensing (I think the objection relates to this kind
> of business model more than others that rely on also non-open source).
>

Then I wrote that poorly.

The suggestion is not that OSI is unfriendly to dual licensing but that a
license that facilitates the co-existance of proprietary and open business
models isn't antithetical to OSI's mission:  promoting open source.

Supporting sustainable open source business models, even those that rely on
closed source revenue streams, seems to be within the swim lane.

Can we please address the main issue in a detached way: can a license
> create an embedded asymmetry of rights, allowing certain people to do
> things that others cannot do and still be called open source? Or does it
> create two (or more) legal commons just starting from the license and
> thereby discriminating?
>

Well, according to the FSF, yes.  That's not definitive for the OSI but NPL
is considered a Free License by the FSF.

Was NPL rejected or never submitted for OSI approval?

Regards,

Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161025/8614dd04/attachment.html>