<html><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><style>@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}</style></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div></div><div>Luciano, <br></div><br><div>McCoy has summarized the main concerns your license seems to raise. The inability to charge a price for accessing the program is directly against OSD #6. Under the OSD you cannot charge more than and effective prices for giving a copy of the full corresponding source code. But it bears no consequences to the ability to even sell the software as such. What you cannot do, conversely, is to charge (or put other restrictions) for the /permissions/ that the license must carry, including that of copying, making modifications and distributing modified copies, which shall always remain fully [f|F]ree and unencumbered.<br></div><br><div>There are several shortcomings in the legal text that require some chiseling, but the above bit is inherently a big hurdle to pass.<br></div><br><div>Also, and I will never get tired of saying it, I am intellectually against "original" and "modifications" as two different statuses of the software. All Open Source software has an upstream and potentially a downstream and the idea should IMHO be that these are the relevant states. If I take code A and add code B to it, and someone adds code C, why should authors of B and C be treated less favorably than author of code A, just because the work initiated there? I have written and published lousy code because I am a lousy coder, some has brought it to decency with substantial effort, why should I have special treatment? And what about combining two different pieces of software to make a larger work? <br></div><br><div>Any modified work should become an original work for the purposes of the license, if the contribution amounts to a copyrighted one, and so on. The governance should be left to a different layer of rules, not to the license.<br></div><br><div>Finally, I believe that the applicable law clause is useless. On the one hand it is repetitive of the provision in the Berne Convention. On the other side, it can be vague and prone to challenges. The GPL and other licenses avoided having an applicable law provision for a reason. I would rather choose one jurisdiction spelling it out, than choosing one by reference, knowing that combining two pieces of software under the same license but with two different applicable laws could make it legally incompatible. Creative Commons dropped this clause with version 4.<br></div><br><div>Cheers<br></div><br><div>Carlo (in his personal capacity)</div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>Da: </b>"McCoy Smith" <mccoy@lexpan.law><br><b>A: </b>"license-review@lists.opensource.org" <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Inviato: </b>Domenica, 13 ottobre 2024 17:16:50<br><b>Oggetto: </b>Re: [License-review] Submission of Forever Free & Open License (FFOL) for OSI Approval<br></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><p>Luciano:<br>
The process for license approval has a couple of other
requirements, which it doesn't look like you've done completely
here:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process</a><br>
</p>
<p>It looks like you haven't done the following (possibly others as
well):</p>
<p>*Affirmatively state that the license complies with the Open
Source Definition, including specifically affirming it meets OSD
3, 5, 6 and 9.<br>
*Identify what projects are already using the license.<br>
<br>
*Describe any legal review the license has been through, including
whether it was drafted by a lawyer.</p>
<p>I haven't looked through this license in detail, but it seems
that a purpose of your license is to preclude charging a fee for
software under the license, which likely violates OSD 6 (although
the definition is not explicit on that point, I think it falls
within the statement "For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business").<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/12/2024 12:08 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:onaicul2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">onaicul2008@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:017501db1cda$233cff90$69b6feb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hello,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am submitting a new
license, the Forever Free and Open License (FFOL), for OSI
approval. Below is a brief overview of the license, how it
complies with the Open Source Definition (OSD), and why it
is a necessary addition to the OSI-approved licenses.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Overview</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Forever Free and
Open License (FFOL) ensures that the Licensed Work remains
free (both as in freedom and as in price), requiring that
all modifications be distributed under the same license. It
enforces open access to modifications, prohibits charging
for the work itself, and ensures that redistributions retain
proper attribution to original authors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Compliance with OSD</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: </span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-US">The FFOL complies with the OSD by providing
the rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute the
Licensed Work.</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-US">It guarantees open access to the source code
and requires that modifications are made publicly
accessible without restriction.</span></li>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span lang="EN-US">It enforces strong copyleft principles while
promoting open collaboration and contribution.</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Rationale</span></b><span lang="EN-US">: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The FFOL is necessary to
offer a stricter copyleft license that ensures no barriers
are introduced to access or modify works. It closes
loopholes found in some existing licenses, such as
preventing gatekeeping by private groups or organizations.
It also emphasizes keeping the works fully accessible and
transparent for everyone.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A key distinction of the
FFOL is that it ensures the works remain free not only in
terms of freedom (as defined by other licenses like GPL) but
also in terms of price. Unlike the GPL, which explicitly
permits charging for redistributions (as long as freedom to
modify is maintained), the FFOL prohibits any fees for
access to the Licensed Work itself. This guarantees that no
one is ever charged for using, sharing, or accessing the
work, ensuring a price-free distribution model.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Another important
element of the FFOL is its strong emphasis on proper
attribution. It ensures that every contributor is credited
strictly for their specific contributions, with clear
boundaries set between original authorship and
modifications. This approach promotes transparency and
fairness in recognizing contributions across the lifespan of
a project, avoiding excessive or insufficient attribution
for each contributor.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Attached is the final
version of the license text. I look forward to discussing it
further with the OSI community.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Luciano Girotti.</p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
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 opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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 opensource.org email address.<br><br>License-review mailing list<br>License-review@lists.opensource.org<br>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</blockquote></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>