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

[Smith, McCoy]

Not to toot my horn but I had a fairly lengthy list of issues for this one:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-September/003522.html

Response by author one of those issues:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-September/003525.html


From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 2:20 PM
To: estellnb at elstel.org
Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

For the list's convenience, and in the absence of similar diligence by the author, I have attempted to accumulate the open issues. My apologies if I have missed or misunderstood any. They would probably benefit from a further digest.

I believe a minimum of a revised license with the drafting issues addressed will be required to progress, although I believe the stated issues related to OSD #3 and OSD #5 also need serious attention. As it stands I would not vote to approve although naturally I can't speak for the full Board on this.

S.


Carlo Piano on 26-Sep-18:
"I remain quite puzzled by the main feature of the license, namely, the right of *some* copyright holders in the initial work to decide on the licensing of the *other* follow-on developers who are also copyright holders. Isn't it a sort of discrimination, therefore against #5? My initial and non meditated reaction is that this license should be rejected as long as Section 7 is concerned." (issue addressed with opinion)
"restricting others from doing something that the initial developers can do, siphoning in the formers' code and copyright, that does not seem acceptable." (issue not addressed)
"The "Original contributor" language exposes a kind of fallacy, that the contribute by the originator is more "important" than the one of the other contributors." (issue accepted by author but not remedied)

Bruce Perens on 26-Sep-18:
"The main reason to reject is that this license allows an arbitrarily chosen group (the original licensors are not necessarily the ones who do the most work, etc.) to take the work of others private and release it under a non-open-source licence, without using the more legally sound process of a contributor license agreement." (issue addressed with opinion without resolution)
"Despite the stated involvement of an attorney in _evaluating_ the license, the language construction is sometimes vague and contradictory. Perhaps this is due to an effort to make it simpler for non-attorneys. But it is not clear to me that this is a work of authorship of a lawyer, or is that an attorney, understanding the other tools available, would have felt this licence is necessary." (issue not addressed)

Brendan Hickey on 26-Sep-18:
"the entire choice of law clause is farcical. It enables some very adventurous jurisdiction shopping." (issue rejected without sufficient rationale by author)

Rick Moen on 02-Oct-18:
"Wildly developed different forks are always inherently permitted by open source licensing (OSD #3).  Given that you apparently wish to prevent forks you disapprove of, I would suggest that you basically prefer proprietary development." (issue not understood by author)
"The problems in C-FSL 1.1 are IMO so vast one scarce knows where to begin -- perhaps with its many odd, convoluted, and poorly defined turns of phrase.  As a copyeditor, I was so struck with the need to  red-pencil (among many others) the section 5 phrase 'there only needs to be one marker by the party which is at the end of the chain as long as that chain remains to be documented in some place where it is shipped with your software' that I only barely noticed that the crucial term 'marker' is completely unclear, even though the preceding sentence purports to define it." (Issue not addressed)

--
Simon Phipps, President, The Open Source Initiative
www.opensource.org<http://www.opensource.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181015/e7238ffb/attachment-0001.html>