[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Elmar Stellnberger]

   Thanks for pointing me to UCL, Nigel. The license could probably be 
an alternative if I can not use C-FSL. Nonetheless I believe dual 
licensing makes things much more complicated. I would have to invent an 
upstream license. I wonder why UCL is open source as it seems to force 
users to publish also under an upstream license without defining it. 
C-FSL does roughly turn out to perform the same in one license while it 
cleanly defines the rights of the original authors without anyone having 
to read an upstream license.
   If both licenses achieve the same I would still highly prefer C-FSL 
as it is more readable to developers like me. I believe many licenses 
fail in the way that those who have to work under a given license will 
be ready to understand it.

P.S.: 'all Derivative Work You distribute or communicate shall be 
licensed under both this Upstream Compatibility License and the Apache 
License 2.0 or later;'
- To me the 'shall' is somewhat misleading as it reads like a 
recommendation and not something you need to adhere to when publishing a 
derived work of a work under the given license.


On 10/3/18 1:14 AM, Nigel T wrote:
> I wasn't going to bring it up but there is an approved special purpose 
> license that may meet your needs.
> 
> UCL v1.0 (https://opensource.org/licenses/UCL-1.0) is a copyleft license 
> based on Laurence Rosen's OSL license 
> (https://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm) with effectively a 1/2 line 
> change where derivative works of the original must be dual licensed UCL 
> and Apache and not just OSL.
> 
> You get the rough equivalent of a CLA since you can choose the apache 
> license on any derivative work rather than use under the UCL license.
> 
> It is a special purpose license because only when a large body of work 
> is open sourced for the first time is this license likely to be 
> useful/chosen.  Unfortunately my sponsor ran out of funding before I 
> could get them to release our project under UCL...now I have to do it 
> the hard way so it's taking a while.
> 
> Wow, I just clicked on the UCL link and it appears all the formatting 
> has disappeared for the license.  I can fix that if someone tells me 
> whom to send an update to...you'll have to trust me on what is says. :)
> 
> Here is section 1c that was changed:
> 
> 
>     c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and
>     Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of
>     Original Work You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under
>     this Upstream Compatibility License and *all Derivative Work You
>     distribute or communicate shall be licensed under* *both this
>     Upstream Compatibility License and the Apache License 2.0 or later*;
> 
> 
> Forking isn't impacted at all other than you can probably safely use any 
> changes in those forks.  I say probably because there isn't any 
> guarantee that any forked project licensed everything correctly...but 
> bug fixes and the like are (probably) safe even if the changes exceed 
> the de minims threshold since you can pick Apache for those changes.
> 
> I am not a lawyer and I'm speaking just for myself.  Do these 
> disclaimers really do anything?  It's kind of like a cargo cult law 
> ritual...
>