<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div>When I read Josh:<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>I'm not convinced that there are any new "good" ideas in OSS</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>licenses. I take the extreme position that if we never approved another</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">>license, it would be a good thing.</span><br>
</div><div style><font face="arial, sans-serif">It looks a little bit like if OSS licenses would escape to any progress or Darwinian evolution as from date X (when?). If such biblical vision was true, OSI should indeed focus on other subjects, bit I believe it is not, hopefully.</font></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">However, it is obvious that the process of OSI license approval is currently not the right one and should be improved:</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- a more "formal" process, with a signed form including the full OSD,</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- a short list of "usual licenses" to read by the requester before any submission (not the 60 OSI-approved licenses, but maybe a selection of about 10 (representing permissive, moderated copyleft and copyleft models),</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- a formal declaration that the new proposed license is not in contradiction with the above OSD,</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- a mandatory indication of which "usual license(s)" is(are) the most similar to the proposed new license,</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- the proposed TXT,</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- a mandatory explanation about differences between the above similar usual license and the new one (why the need for a new licence),</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- rationale about why the "issue" cannot be solved by adding a simple additional agreement, compatible with the most similar licence,</span></div><div style>
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">- the (perhaps non mandatory, but strongly recommended) name of the lawyer who has reviewed the above submission.</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Another suggestion would be to deliver more rapidly a simple "certificate of OSD compliance" which would be a first step. OSI approval would be given only as a second step, i.e. once the steward bring the evidence (names + URLs) that a minimum number of projects (100, 250, 500?) are published under his license. This first step would put an end to the current frustration of refusing any new license. The advantage of implementing two classes of licenses (first class with more of X projects and second class with a simple certificate) would be the possibility to clean up the current OSI-approved license list, moving some of the less used or old licenses in a second basket.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Just my two cents... </span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2013/6/5 Josh Berkus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org" target="_blank">josh@postgresql.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Clark,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> What if the "discussion" part of the process were mandatory -- the<br>
> first step would be a "need" validation on license-discuss by posting a<br>
> synopsis that outlines the "real world" licensing problem being<br>
> addressed and why other licenses are inadequate.<br>
<br>
> The discussion could then be focused on validating if this "need" is<br>
> consistent with the vision of the OSI. If so, then the participant<br>
> could be *invited* to submit their license design and perhaps even<br>
> official legally prepared license text to license-review.<br>
<br>
</div>I like this general idea, actually. I think there would be significant<br>
non-proliferation benefit to having a multi-stage approval process for<br>
new licenses, an important part of which could be license-discuss. If<br>
nothing else, the time that this process takes would discourage "crayon"<br>
licenses.<br>
<br>
Everyone: note that Clark is talking about discussion on<br>
license-discuss, NOT here.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that his should be explained in terms of "needs" though,<br>
which is not part of the OSI charter. Rather, it should be explained in<br>
terms of:<br>
<br>
(1) does the license fit the OSD?<br>
(2) is it sufficiently different from all existing licenses?<br>
<br>
The desires of the requestor in creating the license would come out in<br>
discussion of (2).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I'm reluctant to shut down good<br>
> ideas, just because the submitter doesn't have $10k spare cash to throw<br>
> at an attorney. In other words, asking for varnish isn't going to help<br>
> when the wood is rotten.<br>
<br>
</div>I'll take a couple exceptions to that:<br>
<br>
First, *at some point* the new license will need legal review by<br>
*somebody*. We should not be approving licenses which no lawyer has<br>
ever taken a hard look at. So either the legal review happens before<br>
submission, or it happens afterwards.<br>
<br>
Second, I take the tack that if someone *does* have the resources for<br>
professional legal staff to handle licensing, we *have* to handle them<br>
here because we can't ignore them. They've demonstrated the resources,<br>
organization and resolve that they might go ahead and deploy their<br>
license whether or not we approve it, so we have a limited window of<br>
time to talk them into modifying it or (better) using an existing<br>
license instead.<br>
<br>
Third, I'm not convinced that there are any new "good" ideas in OSS<br>
licenses. I take the extreme position that if we never approved another<br>
license, it would be a good thing.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--Josh Berkus<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz<br>Legal adviser</div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="http://www.joinup.eu">www.joinup.eu</a></div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>
<br></div></div></div>