License Approval Process

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Alexandra White wrote:
> I wanted to get some feedback about the best way to assist in
> streamlining OSI license approval for customers.  

OSI is doing what we can to approve licenses; in fact we approved a couple
at a meeting this week during Linuxworld, once we get our meeting minutes
together we'll post the results.  At the same time, we don't want to be
rushed and make a bad decision, like we did once.  Some of these licenses
also really push us on what OSD conformance means - the OSD is not as
clear as it could be (what does it mean to not discriminate against a
"group of people" - how about the "group of people who refuse to accept
the license"?) So I don't know the right answer to give you, other than,
we're busy but we're trying.

> 1) For instance, we have a number of customers who we are helping to
> take their code to the open source and thus are assisting in getting OSI
> approval for them.  While we encourage them to use existing open source
> licenses rather than creating their own, many want to simply rename the
> license with their product name but keep the license identical. Thus,
> they could label it "Acme Software License (BSD)"  In this case, can we
> assume that the license is OSI-approved?

Simple renaming is fine; but then I have to ask, why rename?  Why not just
call it the BSD license?

> 2) What minor changes to an existing OSI license are acceptable without
> seeking approval?

Changing the name is about the only one I'd consider.  And it must be
clear that we didn't approve "Acme Software License", we only approved a
*similar* license.  I've proposed to the board that we genericize the
licenses and allow people to change entries in a header at the top, we're
considering it.

I know Vovida's license has only a few minor changes from BSD; to me they
look fine, but they still require discussion amongst the board and
potentially people on os-discuss.  I.e., what does it mean to disclaim
liability, "in excess of $1000"?  I've talked with Alan about it, and it
sounds like a formality associated with the UCC, but why it's $1000 and
not $1, I still don't understand.  Still, that may not matter w/r/t OSD
conformance, but it's still worth pondering.

> 3) In the cases where a customer does need OSI approval, how can I help
> them expedite the process to get a timely response?  For example, I
> submitted a license on June 9 for Cadence and have not heard any
> feedback on its progress. 

You're right - it's not on the long list that Larry posted last
week.  Larry, could you make sure it's on the list?

	Brian