License Committee Report for September 2005
Russell Nelson
nelson at crynwr.com
Mon Sep 12 06:00:47 UTC 2005
[ note Reply-To ]
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
promptly.
I bring two concerns from the committee to the board:
o Country-specific Warranty disclaimers are a nasty tarball that the
board needs to head off. I (speaking for myself) suggest the
board request a report from the license approval committee on
suggested actions.
o The three criteria (readable, reusable and unique) that the board
passed and published in March got accidentally deleted in August.
They need to be restored to their proper place. Most
license-discuss members seem to believe that that place is in the
OSD. There is not a consensus on this, though.
--
Title: Fair License
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:9784:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm
License: in the submission
Comments: administrivial change (removal of URL).
Recommend: approval
--
Title: oxGLODE
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9769:200503:mobnofemphjfnplghkjm
License: there is no license submitted
Comments: Ernie pointed out that he needs to submit a license
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:9771:mobnofemphjfnplghkjm
Recommend: rejection
--
The ACE License is a hard case because it's duplicative, not very
readable and not reusable. It doesn't recognize that some authors may
have rights they cannot waive. On the other hand, they submitted the
license before we adopted the three new criteria.
Title: ACE License
ReSubmission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:10249:idpbfhfhfaihfnffhpae
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9551:200502:oaoffccikahegfoebbbi
License: in the submission
Comments: Rod Dixon's earlier suggestions were incorporated into the
resubmission.
Recommend: approval
--
Australia needs different warranty disclaimer wording. This is a huge
nasty ball of wax. How many different warranty disclaimers are there
in different countries??
Title: OZPLB Licence
ReSubmission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9498:200502:ibddhmkdckpieiodmcjd
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:8849:200410:jneejnfcgpacdjcfbokf
License: In the submission, as proposed. Existing license is http://nicta.com.au/ozplb_licence.cfm
Comments: Brendan Scott suggests that disclaimers should go into a
rider:
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10228:200505:emhpkgkiogbojalnmdef
Recommend: approval
--
The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL. One set changes
policy, and the other set changes implementation. I have suggested
that in order for the OVPL to not be duplicative and to increase its
readability, its implementation changes should actually go into the
CDDL. Simon Phipps and Alex Bligh are discussing this issue.
Aside from Andy's concern listed below, everybody thinks the license
complies with the OSD.
Title: Open Vendor Public License (OVPL)
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10257:200506:gmbfhookcommfnneakhi
License: http://openvendor.org/Licenses/Open_Vendor_Public_License
Comments: The rationale for the license is at:
http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=15
Andy Wilson is not sure that the license's mandatory license-back
falls within the letter and spirit of the OSD.
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10642:200508:hlfamcihnmnahfmglhfm
Recommend: rejection if you think that the "Readable" criteria means
that a derived license should minimize changes even to the point
of not renumbering sections.
Recommend: approval if you think that the "Readable" criteria means
that the license *itself* should be readable even if it has to
make changes with no legal import.
Recommend: deferral if you want to wait to see what Simon and Alex's
negotiations produce in the way of changes to the CDDL.
--
Title: Open Vendor Lessor Public License(OVLPL)
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10257:200506:gmbfhookcommfnneakhi
License: http://openvendor.org/Licenses/Open_Vendor_Lesser_Public_License
Comments: modified from the OVPL so that a derived work can be
created without causing the OVPL to apply to the portions licensed
under another license.
Recommend: approval should be tied to the OVPL's approval.
--
Title: The Kannel Software License, Version 1.0
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10533:200508:pphogiheomchblkkndnb
License: http://www.kannel.org/license.shtml
Comments: Apache 1.1 with s/apache/kannel/g. Andrew Wilson suggested
Apache 2.0.
Recommend: deferral; still under discussion.
--
Title: CeCILL -
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10264:200506:cieogbcnmhijcoodgdfa
License: in the submission
Comments: Andy Wilson points out that the GPL compatibility clause
makes the license trivially OSD compatible, so that it would be
more honest to distribute dual-licensed GPL and CeCILL. He also
objects to the language requiring source distribution, and the
language requiring conformance to the terms of the license. John
Cowan agrees with these last two but points out that a
contribution licensed under the CeCILL would be licensable under
both licenses, but that a GPL contribution would not be licensable
under the CeCILL.
Recommend: rejection because of unclear source distribution language.
--
Title: Open-Realty License
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10237:200505:ggmklfgghgeljkpkocmb
License: http://www.open-realty.org/oslicense.html
Comments: Not a reusable license. Submittor announced plans to
resubmit license in
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10261:200506:ggmklfgghgeljkpkocmb
but never resubmitted.
Recommend: rejection
--
--my blog is at blog.russnelson.com | with some experience
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | you know what not to do.
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list