[License-review] License Committee Report - July 2017

[Richard Fontana]

Reference is made to the previous report, 
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-March/003004.html.

NASA Open Source Agreement 2.0
==============================

Sorry, no updates to report here.


TOPPERS License (international)
===============================

As was stated previously, to take further action on this license we
need a translation by someone independent of the license submitter,
or, short of that, for someone independent of the license submitter to
assess the fidelity of the English-language version of TOPPERS to the
Japanese original). If anyone on this list is conversant in Japanese
and would like to help with this, let me know.


Zentao Public License
=====================

We continue to hold off on acting on this license submission until OSI
develops a clear position on whether badgeware in a contemporary
license should be a per se disqualification for OSI approval.


European Space Agency Public Licenses
=====================================

I raised some concerns about ESA-PL (see:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-April/003027.html;
see also Josh Berkus's comment
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-April/003029.html). The
license submitters have not responded.


"Modified MIT License for Public Domain software"
=================================================

This was withdrawn by the submitter.


EUPL v1.2
=========

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003046.html

Comments: An update to the OSI-approved EUPL 1.1 with very few
substantive changes. No concerns have been raised.

Recommendation: Approval.


Eclipse Public License version 2.0
==================================

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-June/003048.html

Comments:

There have been few comments and no significant concerns raised. I
myself have no concerns about this license. However I would like to
wait another month or so before recommending a vote by the OSI to
allow for any further commentary. I'd note that the longtime executive
director of the organizational license submitter is also a (longtime)
OSI board member and the organizational license submitter is an OSI
affiliate.

Also, EPL 1.0 is an unusually important license for the OSI since it
is one of the licenses on the so-called "popular and widely-used or
with strong communities" list, and we can expect that, if approved,
EPL 2.0 will take EPL 1.0's place on that list (since that is what
happened with MPL).

Finally, I point out that I've been involved in discussions about EPL
2.0 over the past year or so as an 'invited expert' on the Eclipse
Foundation's IP Advisory Committee, which comes out of my role at Red
Hat.

Recommendation: Wait another month or so to allow for further
discussion or comments.