[License-review] Legacy Approval, Licnese of Jam

[Pamela Chestek]

Dear License-Review,

Below is the recommendation of the License Committee to the Board that
the JAM License be approved as an Open Source Initiative Approved
License. I apologize for the delay in making the recommendation to the
Board.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

License: JAM License (Exhibit A)
Submitted: April 25, 2021,
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-April/005139.html
Decision date: due no later than the first Board meeting after June 24,
2021.

License Review Committee Recommendation:

Resolved that it is the opinion of the OSI that the JAM License be
approved as an Open Source Initiative Approved license in the
Other/Miscellaneous category of licenses.

_Rationale Document_

Notes: This license has been in use for at least 20 years. It is not
widely used but needed to build the widely distributed Argyll Color
Management System.

One commenter noted that the license does not expressly grant the right
to modify, although it can be construed as implying a right to modify by
stating that modifications must be marked. Another commenter pointed out
that less-than-perfect language is common in older open source licenses
and opined that “In this case it is clear from the license text that
‘use’ was meant to encompass permission to modify.” Both Debian and
Fedora distribute software with this license, so presumably these
projects find that it meets their standards for free and open source
licenses. The original commenter agreed that “this one probably meets
the OSD if you assume a lot of liberality on implied license grants
(both copyright, and patent).”

There was some discussion about whether a license in such limited use
should have the attention of the OSI, but it has been submitted for
approval and, to date, OSI has not used the number of projects adopting
a license as a factor in deciding whether a license can be approved.

For these reasons we recommend that the license be approved.

/Exhibit A/

License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it freely,
as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications are
clearly marked.

ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.




On 4/25/2021 5:34 PM, Jack Hill wrote:
> As a licensee of Jam, I'm asking for legacy approval of the following
> terms:
>
> """
> License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute it
> freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications
> are clearly marked.
>
> ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
> """
>
> This is the license used by Jam [0] and its forks [1][2][3] (n.b. the
> boost version is also distributed under the Boost license). Outside of
> Boost, I don't believe this build tool is widely used. However, it is
> needed to build at least one important open source package: the Argyll
> Color Management System. Argyll is the only open source package that I
> know of that can generate color calibration profiles, so it is
> critically important for the use of open source software in fields
> where that is important.
>
> I believe that the proliferation category for this license is
> Other/Miscellaneous.
>
> In other discussions [4] I've had about this license, the problematic
> points were what "distribute freely" meant, and how modifications
> could be clearly marked. The Argyll fork of Jam marks modifications as
> follows:
>
> """
> This if "Argyll-Jam", a simple derivative of the "FT-Jam" build tool,
> based and
> 100% compatible with Jam 2.5. See http://www.freetype.org/jam/ for more
> details about FT-Jam.
>
> This is the "FT-Jam" 2.5.2 release, with minor ArgyllCMS tweaks,
> and the ArgyllCMS V1.3.3 Jambase as the default rule set.
>
> Note that you'll find the original Jam README in the file README.ORG
> """
>
> [0] https://www.perforce.com/documentation/jam-documentation
> [1] https://www.freetype.org/jam/index.html
> [2] http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Compiling.html
> [3]
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_76_0/tools/build/doc/html/index.html#bbv2.jam
> [4] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-04/msg00436.html
>
> Best,
> Jack
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210912/a5dfa376/attachment.html>