<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Elmar, all,<br>
<br>
on a quick reading, I see there is a substantial effort to overcome
most of the criticism to the original version of the license.<br>
<br>
However, leaving aside OSD for a moment, there are still a few bits
where the license is extremely hard to parse (I suppose one can say
the same for the GNU GPL v.3, honestly, at a first reading).<br>
<br>
Anyhow, the bit I was mostly skeptical about has changed, providing
at least some certainty. But I don't think the substance has
changed. Let's see how.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> 6. ORIGINAL AUTHORS
>
> 6.1 The Original Authors of the Work shall be listed at the beginning
> of the changelog file or the header of file changes of Your Derivate
> Work.
</span><br>
<br>
That's fine, I suppose. Just "Derivate" -> Derivative<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">>
> 6.2 You may re-licence your Derivative Work separately under any
> Licence you desire, without a Marker and only with the prior written
> consent of the Original Authors. In such event, new Contributors may
> be added to the Original Authors’ group.
</span><br>
That is again flatly discriminatory, not per se, but in combination
with other provisions.<br>
<br>
Basically it says that somebody can relicense on permission from the
copyright holders. That's nothing more than what is in the law. You
get the permission? No problem. No permission? Stick to the license.
Copyleft, no issues.<br>
<br>
The offending point is that it's the Original Authors, not the
copyright holders, those who have the power to authorize relicensing
and adding new Original Authors (I suppose all of them jointly, or
perhaps based on a majority vote, and in case, how do you calculate
the majority? Per capita? Per share?)<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> 7.5 If the Fork comprises 65% or more code that is different to that
> of the Original Branch, then new Original Authors may be appointed.
>
</span><br>
That's quite a high threshold. This is not a fork, this is a new
project incorporating some of the previous code. And the verb "may"
means by the Original Authors or (more likely, but it's not clear)
by the forker alone?<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> 7.6 Notwithstanding the provisions in 7.4 above, new original
> authors may be appointed with the written consent of the Original
> Authors.
</span>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The reference is wrong, methinks. I suppose it's 7.5. </p>
<p>Troubling point. Again, it's the Original Authors whose who have
power to appoint new Original Authors, despite Original Authors do
not include all those who have copyright title, neither there is
any guarantee that they hold the majority of the copyright,
collectively, or that any of them has the highest share of it.</p>
<p>So my criticism stands, despite the effort. I see that Bruce has
already more or less said the same.</p>
<p>With best regards,</p>
<p>Carlo</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 08/01/19 16:56, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> Full Name: Convertible Free Software License Version 1.3 Short
> Identifier: C-FSL v1.3 URL1:
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.3.pdf">https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.3.pdf</a> URL2:
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.3.txt">https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.3.txt</a>
>
> Rationale and Distinguish: While the BSD license allows the whole
> world to re-license and while re-licensing is virtually impossible
> with GPL since every contributor would need to consent the C-FSL
> license goes a practical intermediate way restricting the right to
> re-license to a group called the original authors. That way open
> source developers are not excluded from making business with others
> who want to base a proprietary product on the given piece of open
> source software.
>
> Proliferation Category & Legal Review: Other/Miscellaneous The
> license has now been fully reworked by a lawyer. Besides this Version
> 1.3 features easier and more user friendly forking.
>
> list of software which uses C-FSL v1.1.: qcoan:
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.elstel.org/coan">https://www.elstel.org/coan</a> xchroot, confinedrv, bundsteg,
> debcheckroot, dbschemacmd: also found at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.elstel.org">www.elstel.org</a>
>
> P.S.: Please excuse that I have forgotten to attach the license in my
> last mail; apart from this this mail is just the same.
>
> _______________________________________________ License-review
> mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a></span><br>
</body>
</html>