[License-discuss] Developing a new open source license

Smith, McCoy mccoy.smith at intel.com
Thu Jan 31 18:08:38 UTC 2019

Given where we currently are in the Google/Oracle case, I’m curious how you define API (or if you define it at all).
Would it require copylefting code that implements an API that is non-copyrightable, or implements an API when such implementation would be fair use?
Anyway, I’ll be at CopyleftCon so maybe I can just ask these questions after your presentation.  Sounds like maybe you’re going to address current state of the law and how you think that can allow copyleft to expand.

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:52 AM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Developing a new open source license


With all respect and understanding of the motivations of the group behind this, I have a really big problem with this part:
Unlike other current open source licenses, the Autonomous Agent License will require software that implements a compatible API or publicly performs the API to also be open source.
I am the standards chair of the Open Source Initiative. If the provision you propose in this license was used by standards associations, they could trivially prohibit Open Source implementations of their standard APIs. This is obviously something that OSI would have to fight in court.

Thus, it's a really, really bad idea for OSI to stand for such a provision by approving a license containing it.

Also, almost trivially compared to the above issue, this obviously violates OSD #9.

So, unfortunately I really have to recommend in the strongest way that a license incorporating that term not be approved.



On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:17 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com<mailto:van.lindberg at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

I have been retained to help develop a new, strong copyleft open source license for a client, Holo Ltd. We have been going back and forth internally for a little while and we will shortly be putting out a draft for public comment. After the public comment period, we will be submitting the license to the OSI for certification.

I will also be discussing this license in my presentation at CopyleftConf on Monday.

In the meantime, some of the underlying reasoning for why we need a different open source license is being presented on Holo's blog. The first post is up now, and the second will be up in a couple days:


Comments are welcome.

License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190131/82ca42d5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list