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

[Simon Phipps]

Oops, sorry McCoy. Quite right - I must have overlooked that one while
skipping all the offtopic stuff, my apologies. I recommend the author also
consider these issues before resubmitting.

S.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:34 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Simon Phipps*, President, The Open Source Initiative*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181015/b1f2daee/attachment.html>