<div><div>Hi community,</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to clarify some points regarding the Mulan PubL v2 and to address any misunderstandings stemming from my previous communications.</div><div><br></div><div>First and foremost, I would like to apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier statements. I want to emphasize that the Mulan PubL v2 is not intended to impose any restrictions on users and is indeed compliant with OSD6. As Mike kindly explained, our initial wording about "restricting distribution conditions for emerging technologies like SaaS" was merely intended to convey that the Mulan PubL v2 draws on the experiences of AGPL, EUPL and etc., and offers a broad definition of distribution.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding Mike's mention of Clause 6, as you rightly suspected, this clause was specifically designed to ensure compatibility with licenses of wider adoption. Because of the license's expansive definition of distribution, the only licenses that are compatible with the Mulan PubL v2 remain AGPL. To our knowledge, there has yet to be a widely adopted Mulan PubL open-source project that has successfully integrated into the AGPL community; however, we believe that this clause has at least removed legal barriers from the Mulan PubL side.</div><div>Additionally, I would like to point out that Mulan PubL v2 builds upon Mulan PSL v2. The suggestions for revisions received during the review process of the previous PSL, including language applications and drafting of multiple clauses, have been incorporated into Mulan PubL v2. Much like its predecessor, Mulan PubL v2 was developed in response to the Chinese community’s demand for a reciprocal license.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your understanding, and please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or require additional clarification.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Nadia </div><div><br></div>
<div id="QQMailSignature" class="mail-footer" aria-hidden="true"><sign class="qqmail_sign" signid="-1"></sign></div><br><div id="original-content"><div class="mailplugin_quote">
<div class="mailplugin_quote_type" style="height: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); display: none;">----------回复的邮件信息----------</div>
<div class="mailplugin_quote_header" style="color: rgba(11, 17, 26, 0.6); font-family: PingFang SC; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: 150%;">Mike Linksvayer <ml@gondwanaland.com> 在 Tue,Nov 12,2024 7:01 AM写道：</div>
<div class="mailplugin_quote_split" style="border-left: 1px solid rgba(7, 15, 26, 0.15); padding-left: 14px; margin-top: 17px;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 1:02 PM Josh Berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@berkus.org">josh@berkus.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 7.158594px; padding: 14px 16px 14px 8.948242px; color: rgb(149, 149, 149); background-color: rgb(245, 246, 250);">On 10/25/24 01:54, 江波 wrote:<br>
> The Mulan Public License (Mulan PubL) belongs to the Mulan Open Source <br>
> License family (<a href="https://license.coscl.org.cn/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://license.coscl.org.cn/</a>). Previously, the Mulan <br>
> PSL v2 under the Mulan Open Source License family was OSI-approved in <br>
> 2020. Mulan PubL v2 builds upon Mulan PSL v2 by adding copyleft <br>
> provisions, restricting distribution conditions for emerging <br>
> technologies like SaaS.<br>
<br>
Industry-specific restrictions are a violation of OSD6, aside from <br>
having serious enforcement problems. Is there some reason why you <br>
believe that the provisions, as you've written them, comply with the OSD?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not the submitter of affiliated in any way but FWIW/AFAICT "restricting distribution conditions for emerging technologies like SaaS" is a lot more boring than those words make it seem. From the license text: "Distribute (or Distribution) means the act of making the Contribution or Derivative Work available to others through any medium, and using the Contribution or Derivative Work to provide online services to users, such as the act of providing online services through a cloud service platform built using Contributions or Derivative Works."</div><div><br></div>What really got me mildy curious enough to look more as mild aficionado of attempted copyleft compatibility is this sole exception included in the license text: "If you combine Contribution or your Derivative Work with a work licensed under the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3 (hereinafter referred to as “AGPLv3”) or its subsequent versions, and according to the AGPLv3 or its subsequent versions, you have an obligation to make the combined work to be licensed under the corresponding license, you can license such combined work under the license, provided that when you Distribute the combined work, you also provide a copy of this License to the recipients, and retain copyright, trademarks, patents, and disclaimer statements in the Contribution. No Contributor will grant additional rights to the recipients of the combined work for your license under AGPLv3 or its subsequent versions." </div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Not certain I can fully parse that, but hopefully the intent is combined work can be released under AGPL-3.0-or-greater and hopefully it does work.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Given lack of an SPDX identifier I submitted <a href="https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2618">https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2618</a> while reading about this license.</div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Mike</div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><style>div:empty { block-size:0px }</style>