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

Sat Mar 28 06:54:55 UTC 2020

Hi Eric,

Yes you are right, we really wanted to use OSI approved licenses and the
cryptographic Autonomy License is very close to what we need (after the
CPAL-1.0).
I have few questions if you can help.

1. I read cryptographic Autonomy License and i think it didn't says
anything about reselling? (if they can resell under this licenses, then its
best).
2. There is CAPL and ALL , will it likely to be removed?
3. As likely the license i submitted is not drafted by attorney,  and will
likely be rejected. Will there be any problem from opensource.org side if
we continue using OSSNL license?  (as its not approved). (like legal action
from opensource.org side if we continue using that license? in our
opensource called software?)

@Josh,
I see that you have alot of experience in this and here in OSI since long
time, i have no intention to get my license approved because i joined
milling list for help, and its really approved to be helpful to me. I'll
continue looking into what Eric mentioned.

Same question from all others is  Will there be any problem from
opensource.org side if we continue using OSSNL license?  (as its not
approved). (like legal action from opensource.org side if we continue using
that license? in our opensource called software?)

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:38 AM Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com> wrote:

> Syed,
>
> Thanks for submitting this license. I get the impression you're really
> trying to comply with the OSD and it's appreciated.
>
> While you're free to continue trying to get your license approved, I want
> you to consider whether this is the best use of your limited resources.
>
> An obligation of OSI approval is that the license be drafted by an
> attorney. Since your team is so small, it's totally reasonable such a
> requirement would be prohibitive. Open source licenses are brutally
> difficult to draft because they must meet a complex set of requirements;
> there just aren't that many intellectual property attorneys who are even
> qualified to write them. Since that's the case and it's extremely unlikely
> you will find free help to draft it, I'd very much encourage you to
> evaluate other licenses that have already been approved.
>
> I appreciate that you feel that no license quite fits but as long as you
> keep your goal as being compliant with the OSD, I think it's likely that
> there's at least one license that will either fit your needs perfectly or
> be very close.
>
> Based on my understanding of what your current license seems to be trying
> to do, I would encourage you to look at the AGPL 3 or the Cryptographic
> Autonomy License (viewable at
> https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license and approved
> recently but not yet posted on opensource.org). They both work somewhat
> differently and add different obligations but they cover many of the issues
> you seem to be trying to address.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
> arsalan at buddyexpress.net> wrote:
>
>> @Josh, i am not an expert in these things but
>>
>> The license provide example for prominent display it didn't means you
>> must show on splash screen, that means on any visible place.
>> Regarding your other 3 points,  the initial license is introduced for our
>> web application only.
>>
>> - If you are running web based application on headless machine that means
>> either it is API or something else.
>> - If it is embedded hardware then it should be provided somewhere on
>> hardware just like arduino microcontroller have it on back side. (in
>> context of our web based software to see how it can be installed on
>> embedded machine
>> https://opensource.com/article/20/3/raspberry-pi-open-source-social)
>> - You can borrow the libraries / source files but in source files you
>> should mention the copyrights and attribution notice.
>>
>> I think the draft can be reset into better English and few new points
>> that clears these types of ambiguities?
>> Maybe it should be mentioned in license that it is suitable for web based
>> applications?
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:28 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/20 11:41 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>>> > 1. Must they be retained in source code distributions?
>>> > 2. Must they be included in binary distributions?
>>> > 3. Must they be presented to the user of the software in any fashion?
>>> >
>>> > (1) is quite common and completely acceptable.
>>> >
>>> > (2) is also quite common and completely acceptable.
>>> >
>>> > (3) is not common, and by common interpretation of the OSD it is not
>>> > acceptable because it disallows a particular type of modification of
>>> > the software. OSD-compliant licenses allow recipients to make any
>>> > modifications they wish and to distribute those modified versions.
>>>
>>> It's even finer-grained than that, because we consciously approved the
>>> GPLv3 despite its attribution notice requirement.
>>>
>>> The reason why the GPLv3 was acceptable was that the notice requirement
>>> was flexible; that is, notice is only required if the derivative work is
>>> already presenting other information to the user, and the exact format
>>> of the notification is not defined.
>>>
>>> Contrast this with the OSSNL, which *requires* a splash screen.  This
>>> means that:
>>>
>>> - I can't run OSSNL-licensed software on any "headless" machine
>>> - I can't run OSSNL-licensed software in an embedded context
>>> - I can't borrow useful libraries out of OSSNL-licensed software and use
>>> them in a program that has no GUI
>>>
>>> This makes it a clear violation of OSD#10.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Berkus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate
> wwahammy.com
> eric at wwahammy.com
> @wwahammy
> Pronouns: He/his/him
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200328/d2bb7211/attachment.html>