<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Nigel,<br>
<br>
I will stop repeating the same comment (which I myself received
firstly, by the way) when this nonsense of considering "open
source" a copyright-only licensing issue will come to an end, or,
more appropriately, when this larger and graver nonsense of
applying patents to software would not be gone for good. <br>
<br>
A legal text must be interpreted in the situation where it
applies. If the scenario changes, its interpretation must change.
So be for the OSD, if the "evolutionary" interpretation is not
defeated an insurmountable wording therein. This is not the case.
My reading of the OSD is perfectly compatible with the text. No
need whatsoever to change the OSD. The OSD says "the *distribution
terms* of open source must comply". Not "the distribution terms
under copyright". The distribution terms. Period. <br>
<br>
How come if you have two sets of rights on the software you
yourself make or modify and distribute, you may sanely say "take
it, this is open open source", and when someone starts using it
you say "hey, but not THAT open, here's a license, here's a bill
for royalties, if you want to continue using it". "But you have a
license!" "Ah-ah! A license on copyright, not a license on
patents!"<br>
<br>
Where is the "without the need for execution of an additional
license"? <br>
<br>
Of course, if somebody else come forward with their own patent for
software they have not created, this would be a problem of the
legal system, not of the license. But if the license allows a
"gotcha" situation by the same developer, sorry, that's a problem
of the license.<br>
<br>
Then you can do as you please, and call "open source" a <i>legal
</i>instrument that only people having signed a patent license and
pay royalties for it can <i>legally</i> use, modify, distribute.
I will still retain the right to think and say it's a totally
foolish and self-defeating position. Will I be alone or just with
the minority? Too bad!<br>
<br>
Brexit showed us that the decision of the majority not necessarily
is the most sane, never mind the most informed one. Good luck!<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/08/2017 17:51, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:21cf92dd738f420693a5abacb2c88e32@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<div>Oops.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My comment is that there is no red line for patents in the
OSD. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Either get the necessary consensus to change the OSD or stop
debating this in every single Open Source license submission and
holding them up.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The FACT remains that non-OSI approved licenses, namely CC0,
are considered Open Source by many open source practioners so
your opinion is not necessarily the majority view and certainly
not the universal view.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;
padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Tzeng, Nigel H. <<a
href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Friday, Aug 11, 2017, 11:45 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>License submissions for OSI review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For Approval:
W3C Software and Document License</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;
padding-top:6px; font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Carlo Piana <<a
href="mailto:carlo@piana.eu" moz-do-not-send="true">carlo@piana.eu</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Thursday, Aug 10, 2017, 6:08 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a> <<a
href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-review] For
Approval: W3C Software and Document License</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<style>
<!--
.EmailQuote
{margin-left:1pt;
padding-left:4pt;
border-left:#800000 2px solid}
-->
</style><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="PlainText">On 09/08/2017 21:15, <br>
<br>
The scope of a FOSS license is to give permission to do
things with<br>
software. They are *historically* conceived as copyright
licenses<br>
because *historically* that was what drafters understood
it was the<br>
regime under which rights had to be conferred on
software.<br>
<br>
If different rights insist on software, the owner of
those rights who<br>
purports to give permission *must* give those permission
under all the<br>
rights she may have, or the openness test would
miserably fail.<br>
<br>
Otherwise it is like opening one lock of a door, with
the other<br>
remaining closed. The door will not open. So if the
license is a key,<br>
you cannot just say "this key will conditionally open
all the copyright<br>
locks on my doors" and claim that the doors will be
"open doors". If<br>
there are patent locks of yours, the doors will remain
shut. [0]<br>
<br>
A license which only gives copyright licenses but
refuses to do so for<br>
patents is not an open source license in my and many
others' opinion.<br>
It's a public license, it is valid, it has some scope,
but it's not open<br>
source.<br>
<br>
I invite OSI to take a stance once for all as to this
conceptual ambiguity.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
</span></font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>