[License-review] Fwd: For Approval | Open Source Social Network License 1.0
opensource at lukasatkinson.de
Sat Mar 28 16:41:57 UTC 2020
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 11:11, Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <…> wrote:
> OSSN L 4.0 is CAL (unmodified).
I'm not sure whether the CAL is a suitable license for your needs. It is a
large and complex license, likely more complex than the (A)GPL which you
consider “too big for the normal user to read”. And given that the CAL is
so new, you would be one of the first users. Switching from a permissive
license like the AAL to a copyleft license like the CAL is a big shift, and
shouldn't be done hastily.
Please also note that the version of the CAL that was OSI-approved is Beta
4, as shown in the approval email:
> I am still looking forward for answers form this discussion whether there
> would be a problem if someone use non approved OSI license (we are not
> going to use it just a question) and would there be legal problems from
> opensource.org? (if someone uses keyword open source in their domain with
> non approved OSI license)?
You won't be sued for using a license that wasn't OSI-approved. A license
can also be Open Source without this stamp of approval. But the approved
licenses are mostly fair and sane, whereas non-approved licenses could be
more difficult for you and your users.
Sometimes, well-intentioned people try to create a new open source license
but overlook some problems, e.g. terms that are ineffective in some
jurisdictions or terms that lead to an inappropriate restriction of
essential freedoms. The license you proposed falls under both categories:
some have voiced concerns that it is contradictory, and there seems to be a
consensus that its attribution requirement is too restrictive and too easy
to accidentally violate. OSI-approved licenses have a lower chance of
having such problems, although the process is not perfect (as exemplified
by the approval of the AAL…).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review