[License-review] Subject: Dear OSI License Review Committee (sorry, resending)

[Carlo Piana]

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Giovedì, 12 febbraio 2026 21:04:29
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Subject: Dear OSI License Review Committee (sorry, resending)

[...]
> 
> > 2. EOL RECONSTRUCTION & SOURCE CODE LIBERATION:
> >   The primary goal is the technical migration and reconstruction of
> >   closed or EOL formats into functional, human-readable source code to
> >   ensure interoperability and digital preservation. Distribution in
> >   proprietary or closed binary formats is prohibited; the work must
> >   be entirely transformed into an open source code project.
> 
> So the standard way that copyleft licenses deal with source code
> requirements is to require the distribution of source code *alongside*
> any other formats. I am not sure that we would approve a license that
> prohibited binary distribution, as that seems to fall afoul of OSD6.
> 
> There's also the problem that this paragraph contradicts the first
> paragraph of your license.

Yes. A binary can be non proprietary if the complete corresponding source code is released and the permissions are granted. A source code can be proprietary even if complete, if the permissions are not granted.

One of the permissions is indeed to use the code in whichever form and using whichever technology (we can think of corner cases, but let's stick to general uses), one of which is to transform it into binary, just because. If the paragraph were to read "Distribution in ~~proprietary or closed~~ binary format **alone** [...]" then we could discuss, but in this form I think we're at a dead end, I fear.

The rest is a matter of technical writing and not insurmountable, but please make sure a minimum quality threshold is achieved by running it past someone who knows this stuff from a legal perspective.

> 
> > 3. RECREATION & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
> >   The Original Author or Copyright Holder remains the sole owner and
> >   Copyright Holder of the underlying IP (assets/art/ideas). The
> >   Archivist/Recreator is NOT the owner of the original work, but the
> >   author of the technical transposition into source code. This license
> >   ensures the work is transformed from a restricted format into an
> >   open, reconstructive project.
> 
> Now, this is very confusing because here it doesn't sound like you're
> talking about open source content at all.  It sounds like the purpose of
> this license is to have a specific release for archiving content in open
> formats, but for *no other purpose*.   If so, that would be an
> interesting content license, but not open source.  You might talk to
> Creative Commons about it.
> 
> And, again, this clause contradicts the first paragraph.
> 
> In conclusion:  This license is not ready for license-review, it is not
> near approvability.  It's quite possible that it is not suitable for OSI
> at all, but instead should go to Creative Commons.  I suggest moving
> discussion to license-discuss instead.

I agree. It is not ready and very probably serves commendable purposes, but not the basic tenets of Open Source, in the present form at least.

Cheers

Carlo

> 
> --
> 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