[License-review] Fwd: For Approval | Open Source Social Network License 1.0
Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah
arsalan at buddyexpress.net
Sat Mar 28 09:14:07 UTC 2020
Sorry for bunch of emails together
We have decided to use CRYPTOGRAPHIC AUTONOMY LICENSE VERSION 1.0
We posted first draft for our next version license
https://www.arsalanshah.com/ossn-v5.3-license-change-draft-v0.1.html#questions
and based on following question answers we understood by the license
Question
| Answer
Can i remove copyright notices? | No
(See Section 4.3)
Can i remove attribution notices?
(including powered by open source social network?) | No (See Section
4.3)
Can you modify?
| Yes
Can you distribute?
| Yes
Can you use it for commercial purposes? | Yes
(keeping copyright and attribution notices)
Can you charge your users any fee? | Yes
Who owns my social network data? | You
Who owns custom work that you combined with OSSN? | You
If this is true please close my request for license approval and I
appreciate your help!
Thank you very much!
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:32 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
arsalan at buddyexpress.net> wrote:
> I would like to ask you all that if the non approved license i
> submitted we only wanted to use it for our software 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?) As we have
> keyword opensource in our domain.
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:54 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
> arsalan at buddyexpress.net> wrote:
>
>> 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/20200328/97a77c39/attachment.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list