<html><p>Dear OSI License Review Committee,</p><p>I am Daniel Elliott, submitting on behalf of BarrerSoftware (the license steward) for review and approval of the BarrerSoftware License (BSL) v1.0.</p><p>===============================================================================<br>LICENSE INFORMATION<br>===============================================================================</p><p>License Name: BarrerSoftware License (BSL)<br>Version: 1.0<br>License Steward: BarrerSoftware<br>Submitter: Daniel Elliott (on behalf of BarrerSoftware)<br>License Text: Attached as BSL-LICENSE.txt</p><p>Projects Currently Using This License:<br> - Quartermaster (Infrastructure management tool)<br> - npm-safe (Secure npm package manager)<br> - SecureOS (Android-based security-focused OS)<br> - CleanVM Free Edition (Virtual machine management)<br> - Various other BarrerSoftware open source projects</p><p>===============================================================================<br>THE GAP THIS LICENSE FILLS<br>===============================================================================</p><p>Currently, no OSI-approved license provides strong anti-commercialization <br>protections while maintaining all four essential freedoms (use, study, modify, <br>distribute).</p><p>The Problem:<br>We have observed a pattern in the software industry where companies:<br>1. Fork free/open source software<br>2. Add minimal "enterprise features"<br>3. Rebrand and sell at significant cost<br>4. Profit from community work without giving back</p><p>Existing licenses either:<br> - Allow unrestricted commercialization (MIT, Apache, BSD)<br> - Are complex and viral (GPL family)<br> - Lack enforcement mechanisms for keeping software free<br> - Don't explicitly address the service-vs-software distinction</p><p>The BSL fills this gap by:<br>1. Explicitly prohibiting commercialization of the software itself<br>2. Allowing (and encouraging) charging for related services<br>3. Ensuring perpetual free availability<br>4. Providing clear enforcement mechanisms<br>5. Using plain language for accessibility (Barrer License Format)</p><p>This enables developers and organizations to release software that:<br> - MUST remain free forever<br> - Cannot be monetized or paywalled<br> - Can still support service-based business models<br> - Is protected from commercial exploitation</p><p>===============================================================================<br>COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR OSI-APPROVED LICENSES<br>===============================================================================</p><p>Most Similar License: GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0)</p><p>Similarities:<br> - Copyleft: Derivatives must use compatible license<br> - Source code must be available<br> - Patent grant with defensive termination<br> - Attribution requirements<br> - Warranty disclaimer and liability limitations</p><p>Key Differences:</p><p>1. COMMERCIALIZATION CLAUSE (Primary Difference)<br> GPL-3.0: Allows selling software and derivatives<br> BSL: Explicitly prohibits ANY commercialization of software<br> <br> Rationale: GPL permits companies to sell GPL software, which can lead to<br> free community work being repackaged and sold. BSL prevents this entirely.</p><p>2. SERVICE EXCEPTION (New Addition)<br> GPL-3.0: Silent on services vs. software distinction<br> BSL: Explicitly allows charging for services while prohibiting charging<br> for software itself<br> <br> Rationale: Clarifies that support, consulting, training, and integration<br> services CAN be monetized, but software access must remain free.</p><p>3. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS (Enhanced)<br> GPL-3.0: Relies on copyright law enforcement<br> BSL: Adds specific provisions for public disclosure, profit recovery,<br> and community protection mechanisms<br> <br> Rationale: Stronger deterrent against violations, especially commercial<br> exploitation.</p><p>4. PRESENTATION FORMAT (Accessibility)<br> GPL-3.0: Legal language only<br> BSL: Uses Barrer License Format (BLF) - plain language summary first,<br> then legal terms<br> <br> Rationale: Makes license accessible to non-lawyers, especially students,<br> hobbyists, and international developers.</p><p>Other Considered Licenses:</p><p>Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0:<br> - Not designed for software<br> - "Non-commercial" is less precisely defined<br> - Lacks patent provisions<br> - Not OSI-approved</p><p>AGPL-3.0:<br> - Focuses on network use (SaaS loophole)<br> - Still allows commercialization<br> - More complex copyleft requirements<br> - BSL is simpler and more focused</p><p>===============================================================================<br>LEGAL REVIEW AND DRAFTING PROCESS<br>===============================================================================</p><p>Legal Review Status: Self-drafted with extensive legal research</p><p>Process:<br>1. Reviewed existing OSI-approved licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL family)<br>2. Studied Creative Commons licenses for accessibility approaches<br>3. Researched software license case law regarding enforceability<br>4. Consulted open source licensing best practices documentation<br>5. Drafted in plain language first, then added formal legal language<br>6. Reviewed for compliance with Open Source Definition</p><p>NOT drafted by an attorney, but:<br> - Based on established legal language from GPL and other proven licenses<br> - Structured to be clear and enforceable<br> - Uses standard warranty disclaimers and liability limitations<br> - Includes patent grant following OSI best practices</p><p>We acknowledge this may require refinement based on OSI feedback and <br>community discussion.</p><p>===============================================================================<br>COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION (OSD)<br>===============================================================================</p><p>We believe BSL complies with all 10 criteria of the Open Source Definition:</p><p>1. Free Redistribution: \u2713 Allows free distribution<br>2. Source Code: \u2713 Source must be available<br>3. Derived Works: \u2713 Allows modifications and derivatives<br>4. Integrity of Author's Source: \u2713 Attribution required<br>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: \u2713 No restrictions<br>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: \u26a0\ufe0f *See Note Below*<br>7. Distribution of License: \u2713 License travels with software<br>8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: \u2713 General license<br>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: \u2713 No restrictions<br>10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: \u2713 Technology neutral</p><p>*Note on OSD Criterion 6 (Fields of Endeavor):</p><p>The anti-commercialization clause may be seen as restricting the "commercial <br>software business" field of endeavor. However, we argue:</p><p>a) The restriction is on MONETIZING THE SOFTWARE ITSELF, not on using it in<br> commercial contexts. Companies can use BSL software in commercial products,<br> commercial services, and commercial environments - they just cannot SELL<br> THE SOFTWARE.</p><p>b) Similar to GPL's copyleft restrictions on proprietary derivatives, BSL<br> restricts commercialization to preserve software freedom.</p><p>c) The "service exception" allows commercial business models (support,<br> consulting, training) around the software.</p><p>d) This protects against exploitation that harms the open source ecosystem.</p><p>We acknowledge this is the most likely point of discussion and welcome <br>feedback from the committee and community on whether the anti-commercialization <br>clause is compatible with OSD criterion 6.</p><p>===============================================================================<br>WHY THIS LICENSE MATTERS<br>===============================================================================</p><p>Use Cases:<br>1. Projects that MUST remain free (educational tools, accessibility software)<br>2. Protection against commercial exploitation of community work<br>3. Service-based business models that keep software free<br>4. Government and academic software meant for public good</p><p>Philosophy:<br>"If it's free, it's free. Period."</p><p>BarrerSoftware has two paid products (Velocity Panel, CleanVM Enterprise) that<br>fund all our other work. Everything else we create is free and MUST remain free.<br>BSL ensures what we give to the community stays with the community.</p><p>===============================================================================<br>FORMATTING NOTE: BARRER LICENSE FORMAT (BLF)<br>===============================================================================</p><p>This license uses Barrer License Format (BLF), our proposed presentation <br>standard for software licenses. BLF presents human-readable terms first, <br>followed by formal legal language, both equally binding.</p><p>We believe this format improves accessibility without affecting legal validity.<br>More information: https://barrersoftware.com/blf.html</p><p>(BLF itself is not part of this license submission - it's a presentation <br>wrapper that can be applied to any license. We may submit it separately as a <br>recommended practice.)</p><p>===============================================================================<br>REQUEST<br>===============================================================================</p><p>We respectfully request:<br>1. Review of the BarrerSoftware License (BSL) v1.0<br>2. Public discussion on the license-review mailing list<br>3. Feedback on compliance with the Open Source Definition, particularly<br> regarding criterion 6 (Fields of Endeavor)<br>4. Approval as an OSI-approved license, if appropriate</p><p>We are committed to:<br>- Participating actively in the discussion<br>- Addressing concerns and making revisions as needed<br>- Maintaining the license long-term as steward<br>- Using this license for all BarrerSoftware free software projects</p><p>===============================================================================<br>CONTACT INFORMATION<br>===============================================================================</p><p>Submitter: Daniel Elliott<br>Organization: BarrerSoftware<br>Email: legal@barrersoftware.com<br>Website: https://barrersoftware.com<br>GitHub: https://github.com/barrersoftware</p><p>We welcome all feedback and discussion.</p><p>Thank you for considering the BarrerSoftware License.</p><p>Respectfully,<br>Daniel Elliott<br>On behalf of BarrerSoftware</p><p>\U0001f3f4\u200d\u2620\ufe0f Building bridges, not walls</p><p>===============================================================================<br>ATTACHMENT: BSL-LICENSE.txt (see attached file)<br>===============================================================================<br> </p></html>