[License-review] License Committee report

[Richard Fontana]

I missed the most recent submission.

libpng license (aka PNG Reference Library License), version 2.0

Submitted: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003791.html

Subsequent comment from license submitter:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003803.html

It has been less than 30 days since the license was submitted. Further
discussion on license-review may occur. At this time I am not sure
what the best course of action for this license submission is.

Recommendation: No action.




On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:36:49AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-August/003068.html)
> 
> 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:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003309.html
> 
> 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:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-September/003097.html
> 
> Revised draft submitted:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-September/003120.html
> 
> Revised draft submitted:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-October/003134.html
> 
> Revised draft submitted:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-October/003247.html
> 
> 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"
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003402.html)
> . 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
> FSF).
> 
> Note that Kyle expected the OSI board to formally consider the
> license, which never happened (see:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003398.html)
> 
> 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).
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-March/003337.html
> 
> 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
> approval.
> 
> Recommendation: No board action.
> 
> 
> YetiForce Public License 3.0
> 
> Submitted:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003377.html
> 
> 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
> 
> Submitted:
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-September/003506.html
> 
> 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
> 
> Submitted: 
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003603.html
> 
> 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.
> 
>