[License-review] Fwd: For Approval | Open Source Social Network License 1.0

[Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah]

*> It is unlikely that this will be approved as an OSD-compliant license,
since requiring users to keep code in the project when they use or
distributed modified versions conflicts with the OSD. Copyright notices and
even attribution notices are one thing, but code which requires runtime
behavior is something else.*
*@Kevin P,*  the license requires copyright notice and attribution notices
in source and binaries when they distribute, or sell copies of it.

*@Lukas, *


*> This would be far from the first OSI-approved license that mandates some
runtime behavior or software features. This OSSNL attribution requirement
seems rather similar to the GPLv3 concept of Appropriate Legal Notices:*
GPLx license are too big for the normal user to read, a normal person going
to run the software won't spend much time in reading the entire license.
Many users don't even read the license.

I am not sure how exactly approval work but when i found AAL it sounds
promising even we rolled out draft to use it for own project instead of
OSSN license.  But the problem arises when it said nothing about keeping
copyright notices in sources files.


*> The OSSNL doesn't really expand the scope of the AAL, e.g. by explicitly
allowing footer text in addition to banner text.*The OSSNL does seem to fix
some issues with the AAL, e.g. the need for GPG-signed attribution blocks.

As OSSN is derived from AAL,  the differences are keeping copyright notices
in source files and the disclaimer. Also no GPG signature required.

*@Brendan*


*> Was this license reviewed by an attorney? This is a prerequisite for
consideration here.*
No it isn't reviewed by any legal entity because we are only two people
team,   we also tried to reach opensource.org contact form to help us about
license but no answers. I have one attorney friend , he told me he doesn't
deal with software related things, so he has no idea.

> (from https://opensource.org/approval) *Legal review*: Describe any legal
review the license has been through, and provide the results of any legal
analysis if available

Besides that on approval requirements page its written to provide any legal
review  if available


*@McCoy Smith*
Thank you very much for understand the situation.  We are open to use any
license that can help us with keeping attribution and copyright notices. We
have no restriction to user to modify, sell,  distribute the software.

I am happy to see that you people are friendly and open for discussion (not
criticising me about our own license submission as in past many developers
criticised us without understanding the reason behind it and when we asked
them for any help, they never helped) I hope to find some solution for our
software license.

Thanks

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:01 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

>
>
> *From:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Lukas Atkinson
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:00 AM
> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Fwd: For Approval | Open Source Social
> Network License 1.0
>
>
>
> *However, I think approval of the AAL might have been a mistake, and that
> approval for similar licenses should be withheld.*
>
>
>
> This license is a very good test case of a couple of propositions that
> have been floating around in various threads (or Board candidacy platforms)
> over the past year or so:
>
>
>
>    1. Are badgeware licenses approvable by OSI now?  If not, on what
>    basis (violation of OSD, violation of other rules or concerns, combination
>    of both)?
>    2. If there are currently approved licenses on the OSI list that
>    either in the past, or now, violate the rules for OSI-approval, what ought
>    to be done with them?
>    3. Is it fair to deny approval of a license when there is precedent in
>    an already-approved license for the same feature or concept in a
>    newly-submitted license?
>
>
>
> Those issues have been kicked around with regard to various licenses on
> license-approval in the past, and on license-discuss in general, but I
> still believe getting resolution on those questions (and documenting the
> resolution for future submitters to understand prior to their license
> submission) would be valuable and would guide submitters like those for the
> OSSNLv1.0.
>
>
>
> This particular submission, IMHO, represents an ideal scenario for
> resolving some or all of those questions, and I’d suggest OSI take the
> opportunity now to do so.
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200326/28852daa/attachment-0001.html>