<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Martijn Verburg wrote:<br>> </span>I'm also the CEO of jClarity, which is actually a proprietary software license company, a choice we partly made because we were concerned about cloud providers service wrapping our software, I feel the commercial pain here.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I'm sympathetic to your oft-stated problem and to your commercial pain, Martijn, but confused by your loose choice of words. What do you mean technically by "wrapping our software"? All software is necessarily wrapped.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>As you know, ordinary copyleft conditions in the AGPL, OSL and similar licenses will require that "your software" and its modifications be forever published as open source software. But what's a wrap? Why are you concerned with the mere wrapping by third-party software around your unique, valuable, copyrighted and copylefted, open source jClarity software?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>By the way, I am not convinced that SSPL's far-reaching but non-discriminatory copyleft <u>condition</u> makes that an improper open source license, and not merely one that will be avoided like the plague by users. (That discussion continues.) But I am convinced that your own desire for a wrap-avoiding license doesn't work for open source. Or if you are still concerned with limiting "wrapping," you are not open source software. That is okay commercially, but not on this list. See OSD #6, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martijn Verburg<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 19, 2018 2:04 PM<br><b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Support for SSPL v2<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>TLDR<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>--------<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>After some long thought and many, many discussions with various folks across the spectrum, at this stage, I'm with Bruce on this one and am happy to help infrastructure projects/providers come up with a common license, but I think getting one that would be OSI approved in a short timeframe isn't going to be feasible.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thre Longer version<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>---------------------------<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I'm the CEO of jClarity, which is actually a proprietary software license company, a choice we partly made because we were concerned about cloud providers service wrapping our software! So I do strongly sympathize with the commercial pressures that infrastructure projects/providers are operating under. It certainly isn't always easy to see others profiting off your hard work without contributing back in a meaningful manner, regardless of license choice. Yes, there is a potential risk that large, complex infrastructure projects won't be built under any sort of shared source or OSS auspices if investors all shy away from investing in them because they think service wrappers will kill their investment due to no license protection.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I'll repeat an often cited statement which I've repeated verbatim to several investors and founders in the last few days:<i> "OSS is not a business model"</i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Making changes to the OSD in order to incorporate what is effectively an FOU restricted OSS License should be approached cautiously and over a much longer time period than what we're all seem to be working under right now (appreciate the commercial pressures here, see below). Maybe something like the SSPLv2 could become an OSI approved license but for now we shouldn't rush this through, the consequences are incredibly long-lasting and far-reaching and I don't think we've collectively had enough time to think all of this through yet.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>With all of that in mind, I'd also like to offer my help alongside Bruce's to get the various infrastructure providers together to work on a common license that they're happy with. We could call the group the "Infrastructure License Consortium" or something else appropriate. I think this would address Greg's concern of proliferation, if all of the various players work together then they could all use the same Commons Clause, or SSPLv2, or YYY license and that could become a de-facto license for this particular service wrapper use case in the industry for whoever *wants to* use it.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Starting in parallel the broader ecosystem could discuss how that license could or could not be an OSI approved Open Source License. I'm sure that will be a long and involved discussion, as it should be! Perhaps at that point, it would be appropriate as an OSI experimental license, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Disclaimer / Background<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>--------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I'm a first-time poster, to help folks understand some of my biases etc here's a self-important listing of roles etc, apologies in advance:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I act as a representative (when they want me to!) for Java User Groups worldwide and spend time pulling together vendors who are normally adversarial to work in communities for the common good (e.g. AdoptOpenjDK). This topic is of great interest to parts of that community as several infrastructure projects are written in Java and these projects by their nature attempt to fulfill an important piece of the Java (and dare I say it software) ecosystem for a good length of time! Licensing *really* matters (preaching to the converted on this obviously).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>For my sins, I sit on the Java Community Process Executive Committee (an enterprisey mouthful I know!), the Eclipse Jakarta EE steering committee and help run the advocacy group at OpenJDK. I Am Not A Lawyer, my background is that of a non-legal 'expert' in GPLv2+CE, AGPL, EPL and Apache v2.0 as it applies to the Java ecosystem in particular.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Repeated from above: I'm also the CEO of jClarity, which is actually a proprietary software license company, a choice we partly made because we were concerned about cloud providers service wrapping our software, I feel the commercial pain here.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>=====<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Cheers,<br>Martijn<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 02:31, Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM Greg Luck <<a href="mailto:greg@hazelcast.com" target="_blank">greg@hazelcast.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>If OSI or another standards body fails to solve this problem with a general, community accepted license, which keeps open source as we know it but restricts service wrapping, then there will be plethora of new custom licenses where each open source software vendor solves the problem for themselves.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>OSI can not "solve" this problem without changing the definition of Open Source or stepping outside of the territory of Open Source to create a new commercial licensing paradigm. They can't do that. I <i>can</i> do that, and will help gratis - as I have already helped other attorneys - as long as you promise to avoid conflict with Open Source. That means you call it something else, and that you acknowledge the difference between your licensing and Open Source. Have your attorney write to me.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>We must remain cognizant that "Open Source companies" remain in the minority of Open Source developers. Most Open Source developers do not wish to make any revenue from their software, but use it to enable another business or non-profit activity. Those folks might welcome having their software adopted by a service provider.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I predict the majority of popular open source infrastructure software will have defensive measures in place in the next year, all with custom licenses.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Actually, it would not be the majority of Open Source infrastructure software. It would be the minority produced by companies which wish to directly gain revenue from that software. This is not the paradigm behind the production of most Open Source. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Which will require the use of a lawyer to use that software, create commercial uncertainty and be a major friction in the use of what has been open source software.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Which will not be OSI or Open Source's problem. You create this problem by leaving the tent.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> Thanks<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> Bruce<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>