<div dir="ltr">Hi Henrik,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for the response, yes those questions will be separate page i just created that file for discussion here. You are right about the name, actually we will use unmodified version of it, as many of our source programs have reference to OSSN license , so we just keep it for reference that OSSN L 4.0 is CAL (unmodified).</div><div><br></div><div>I am still looking forward for answers form this discussion whether there would be a problem if someone use non approved OSI license (we are not going to use it just a question) and would there be legal problems from <a href="http://opensource.org">opensource.org</a>? (if someone uses keyword open source in their domain with non approved OSI license)?</div><div><br></div><div>We;ll provide CAL in next version of our software.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:32 PM Henrik Ingo <<a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi">henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Syed</div><div><br></div><div>Great to hear you have found an existing open source license that suits your needs. This is always the recommended approach.</div><div><br></div><div>When using a license, in this case CAL, you should just use it directly as it is. Just copy paste the entire Cryptographic Autonomy License, and don't rename it to something else. Then it is clear to everyone that you are indeed using an unmodifed open source license. If you want to provide additional guidance, like this table of questions, it should be clearly separate from the license. Perhaps clearest is to have it one a separate (nearby) page or file.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, good luck with your project!<br></div><div><br></div><div>henrik<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <<a href="mailto:arsalan@buddyexpress.net" target="_blank">arsalan@buddyexpress.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Sorry for bunch of emails together</div><div><br></div>We have decided to use CRYPTOGRAPHIC AUTONOMY LICENSE VERSION 1.0<div><br></div><div>We posted first draft for our next version license <a href="https://www.arsalanshah.com/ossn-v5.3-license-change-draft-v0.1.html#questions" target="_blank">https://www.arsalanshah.com/ossn-v5.3-license-change-draft-v0.1.html#questions</a> and based on following question answers we understood by the license </div><div><br></div><div>Question | Answer<br>Can i remove copyright notices? | No (See Section 4.3)<br>Can i remove attribution notices?<br>(including powered by open source social network?) | No (See Section 4.3)<br>Can you modify? | Yes<br>Can you distribute? | Yes<br>Can you use it for commercial purposes? | Yes (keeping copyright and attribution notices)<br>Can you charge your users any fee? | Yes<br>Who owns my social network data? | You<br>Who owns custom work that you combined with OSSN? | You<br></div><div><br></div><div>If this is true please close my request for license approval and I appreciate your help!</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you very much!</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:32 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <<a href="mailto:arsalan@buddyexpress.net" target="_blank">arsalan@buddyexpress.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I would like to ask you all that if the non approved license i submitted we only wanted to use it for our software
Will there be any problem from <a href="http://opensource.org/" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using OSSNL license? (as its not approved). (like legal action from <a href="http://opensource.org/" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using that license? in our opensource called software?) As we have keyword opensource in our domain. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:54 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <<a href="mailto:arsalan@buddyexpress.net" target="_blank">arsalan@buddyexpress.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Eric,<div><br></div><div>Yes you are right, we really wanted to use OSI approved licenses and the cryptographic Autonomy License is very close to what we need (after the CPAL-1.0). </div><div>I have few questions if you can help.</div><div><br></div><div>1. I read cryptographic Autonomy License and i think it didn't says anything about reselling? (if they can resell under this licenses, then its best).</div><div>2. There is CAPL and ALL , will it likely to be removed?</div><div>3. As likely the license i submitted is not drafted by attorney, and will likely be rejected. Will there be any problem from <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using OSSNL license? (as its not approved). (like legal action from <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using that license? in our opensource called software?)</div><div><br></div><div>@Josh, <br></div><div>I see that you have alot of experience in this and here in OSI since long time, i have no intention to get my license approved because i joined milling list for help, and its really approved to be helpful to me. I'll continue looking into what Eric mentioned.</div><div><br></div><div>Same question from all others is
Will there be any problem from <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using OSSNL license? (as its not approved). (like legal action from <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> side if we continue using that license? in our opensource called software?)
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:38 AM Eric Schultz <<a href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com" target="_blank">eric@wwahammy.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Syed,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for submitting this license. I get the impression you're really trying to comply with the OSD and it's appreciated.<br></div><div><br></div><div>While you're free to continue trying to get your license approved, I want you to consider whether this is the best use of your limited resources.</div><div><br></div><div>An obligation of OSI approval is that the license be drafted by an attorney. Since your team is so small, it's totally reasonable such a requirement would be prohibitive. Open source licenses are brutally difficult to draft because they must meet a complex set of requirements; there just aren't that many intellectual property attorneys who are even qualified to write them. Since that's the case and it's extremely unlikely you will find free help to draft it, I'd very much encourage you to evaluate other licenses that have already been approved.</div><div><br></div><div>I appreciate that you feel that no license quite fits but as long as you keep your goal as being compliant with the OSD, I think it's likely that there's at least one license that will either fit your needs perfectly or be very close.</div><div><br></div><div>Based on my understanding of what your current license seems to be trying to do, I would encourage you to look at the AGPL 3 or the Cryptographic Autonomy License (viewable at <a href="https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license" target="_blank">https://github.com/holochain/cryptographic-autonomy-license</a> and approved recently but not yet posted on <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a>). They both work somewhat differently and add different obligations but they cover many of the issues you seem to be trying to address.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Eric <br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 3:54 PM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <<a href="mailto:arsalan@buddyexpress.net" target="_blank">arsalan@buddyexpress.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">@Josh, i am not an expert in these things but <br><div><br></div><div>The license provide example for prominent display it didn't means you must show on splash screen, that means on any visible place.</div><div>Regarding your other 3 points, the initial license is introduced for our web application only.</div><div><br></div><div>- If you are running web based application on headless machine that means either it is API or something else.</div><div>- If it is embedded hardware then it should be provided somewhere on hardware just like arduino microcontroller have it on back side. (in context of our web based software to see how it can be installed on embedded machine <a href="https://opensource.com/article/20/3/raspberry-pi-open-source-social" target="_blank">https://opensource.com/article/20/3/raspberry-pi-open-source-social</a>)</div><div>- You can borrow the libraries / source files but in source files you should mention the copyrights and attribution notice.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the draft can be reset into better English and few new points that clears these types of ambiguities? </div><div>Maybe it should be mentioned in license that it is suitable for web based applications?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:28 AM Josh Berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@berkus.org" target="_blank">josh@berkus.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 3/27/20 11:41 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:<br>
> 1. Must they be retained in source code distributions?<br>
> 2. Must they be included in binary distributions?<br>
> 3. Must they be presented to the user of the software in any fashion?<br>
> <br>
> (1) is quite common and completely acceptable.<br>
> <br>
> (2) is also quite common and completely acceptable.<br>
> <br>
> (3) is not common, and by common interpretation of the OSD it is not<br>
> acceptable because it disallows a particular type of modification of<br>
> the software. OSD-compliant licenses allow recipients to make any<br>
> modifications they wish and to distribute those modified versions.<br>
<br>
It's even finer-grained than that, because we consciously approved the<br>
GPLv3 despite its attribution notice requirement.<br>
<br>
The reason why the GPLv3 was acceptable was that the notice requirement<br>
was flexible; that is, notice is only required if the derivative work is<br>
already presenting other information to the user, and the exact format<br>
of the notification is not defined.<br>
<br>
Contrast this with the OSSNL, which *requires* a splash screen. This<br>
means that:<br>
<br>
- I can't run OSSNL-licensed software on any "headless" machine<br>
- I can't run OSSNL-licensed software in an embedded context<br>
- I can't borrow useful libraries out of OSSNL-licensed software and use<br>
them in a program that has no GUI<br>
<br>
This makes it a clear violation of OSD#10.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Josh Berkus<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate<br></div><div><a href="http://wwahammy.com" target="_blank">wwahammy.com</a><br></div><div><a href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com" target="_blank">eric@wwahammy.com</a><br></div><div>@wwahammy</div><div>Pronouns: He/his/him<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi" target="_blank">henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</a><br>+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo<br><a href="http://www.openlife.cc" target="_blank">www.openlife.cc</a><br><br>My LinkedIn profile: <a href="http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7" target="_blank">http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7</a></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>