[License-review] License Committee report

Richard Fontana richard.fontana at opensource.org
Mon Nov 12 11:36:49 UTC 2018

Here is a long-overdue status update on license submissions. I'm
afraid we haven’t had a similar update for a long time (if I'm not
mistaken the previous one was:

This update assumes that the only license submission worthy of current
comment that is older than a submission (or resubmission) that took
place on or after August 2017 is NOSA 2.0.

NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) 2.0

Nearly a year ago the OSI board adopted a resolution:

There was some helpful subsequent substantive discussion of NOSA 2.0
by Bruce Perens on this list earlier this year (and Bruce also
reported some discussions he had with NASA personnel), notable to me
in that Bruce's ultimate assessment seemed consistent with the board's
view. While NASA has been invited to submit a revised version of NOSA
2.0, NASA apparently is already drafting NOSA 3.0, so I think it might
be best to encourage NASA to seek OSI approval for NOSA 3.0.

Recommendation: No board action. If time permits (which I have to
admit is unlikely) I will try to complete a number of previous
attempts to thoroughly document my concerns about the license.

License Zero Reciprocal Public License

Original submission:

Revised draft submitted:

Revised draft submitted:

Revised draft submitted:

Each of these drafts was discussed pretty extensively on
license-review, with active involvement of the license submitter. To
the extent that there was any consensus view, I would say it was
negative (McCoy Smith described it as "neutral to negative - though
hard to see where the consensus landed"
. Particularly with respect to the fourth draft, several commentators
expressed concerns about OSD conformance. Kyle Mitchell, the license
submitter, has noted policy similarities between LR-0 and the RPL
(https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5), a license approved by an
early incarnation of the OSI (and determined to be non-free by the

Note that Kyle expected the OSI board to formally consider the
license, which never happened (see:

Recommendation: Reject.

European Space Agencies Public Licenses (ESA-PL):

Version 2.3 submitted in March 2018, following some discussion of an
earlier version submitted in December 2017, with revisions intended to
address comments raising concerns about OSD conformance. This is a
suite of three licenses (Strong, Weak and Permissive).

I had a few concerns about the most recent version (present in the
previous version but which had been overlooked by me and others) but
did not get around to raising them when 2.3 was being discussed on
license-review earlier this year. I’d like to do another careful
review of the three licenses, make sure I still have those concerns,
and bring them to the attention of the license submitter. I anticipate
that with at most some limited changes the licenses would be ready for

Recommendation: No board action.

YetiForce Public License 3.0


There was brief discussion on license-review, with clear consensus
that this is not an open source license.

Recommendation: Reject.

Convertible Free Software License Version 1.1


Reaction has mostly been negative and the license submitter does not
seem to be inclined to offer a revised version (see:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003682.html). It
was noted that an OSI-approved license, the Upstream Compatibility
License, may meet the license submitter's needs.

Recommendation: Reject.

Server Side Public License, Version 1


Discussion has been active during the past few weeks. It has been less
than 30 days since the license was submitted and I expect discussion
on license-review to continue.

Recommendation: No action.

More information about the License-review mailing list