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

Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah arsalan at buddyexpress.net
Sat Mar 28 17:33:21 UTC 2020

Thank you Lukas for explanation. We'll continue to monitor this thread for
1-2 days before finally deciding whether to use CAL or custom license of
our owns.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 9:42 PM Lukas Atkinson <opensource at lukasatkinson.de>

> 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:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/004694.html
>> 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…).
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b077e448/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list