<div dir="ltr">Is it practical for a license to be considered for 'open source' usage if the license text implies that there is a single copyright holder/licensor (there are multiple references to 'I' in this license)? How would this be expected to work if someone produces a Derived Work and distributes it? Who is 'I' in that situation?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:29 AM, John Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@mercury.ccil.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Tim Makarios scripsit:<br>
<span class=""><br>
> If you rely on this licence for your right to distribute a Derived Work,<br>
> you must give back to the community by agreeing that the Derived Work is<br>
> governed by this version of the NCCL or substantially similar terms,<br>
> without adding further restrictions to the rights provided.<br>
<br>
</span>I recommend that so as not to create a sealed-off software commons,<br>
you also allow derived works to be licensed under the GPL v3 or under<br>
both licenses. I make this recommendation whenever a new copyleft<br>
license is proposed.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
John Cowan <a href="http://www.ccil.org/~cowan" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a><br>
If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper] once more, I will be downcoming<br>
and somebody will be outgoing.<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>