[License-review] License Committee Report - for board meeting of 2013-04-03

[Hadrien G.]

Indeed, this combination of old and new wording is quite confusing in 
its current state, and I should do something about it.

The goal which I would like to achieve, to the fullest extent that the 
OSD allows, is that if someone takes the licensed software, and 
redistributes it or uses it as a basis to build a new product, then the 
source code for the resulting product should be made available to each 
of the licensees.

Being based on a software is potentially a broader notion than being a 
modified form of it. As an example, software which is linked to a 
library can be said to be based on said library, but is not a modified 
form of it, and software which uses another software as a black box 
through which data is pumped in and out via IPC primitives can also be 
said to be based on said other software, but is not a modified form of it.

It is not very clear to me whether the OSD 9 forbids such scenarios or 
not. But since the GPL has been accepted as an open-source license, I'd 
tend to think that it doesn't. If it did, I guess I'd have to settle 
with a "modified form" wording everywhere to reach OSD compliance. 
Otherwise, I'll rather spread the "based on" wording to the beginning of 
the license too, so as to maximize the reach of the source code 
redistribution requirement.

In both case, it should clarify things by a fair amount.

Hadrien

Le 30/03/2013 15:59, Richard Fontana a écrit :
> Essentially, this is a BSD-like license with the following source code
> availability requirement tacked on:
>
>    * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
>      how to obtain complete source code for the software, and any
>      accompanying work that is based on it. [subsequent details omitted]
>
> I'm not sure I'd argue this is inconsistent with the OSD, but I am not
> sure I understand it.
>
> You start out saying:
>
>> Redistribution and use of this software, or modified forms of it,
>> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> This is similar to the initial wording of most BSD-family licenses,
> except that "or modified forms of it" may be your variant of what we
> more commonly see ("with or without modification").
>
> If I try to reconcile the two parts of the license I've quoted, I get
> this (assume you are giving software under this license to me):
>
> * I can redistribute the software you gave me, unmodified, but
>    (assuming I am not distributing "complete source code" as part of or
>    along with "this software"), I must then provide information on how
>    to get "complete source code" not only for "this software" but also
>    "any accompanying work that is based on it". So, okay, there can be
>    a situation where I distribute A, your software, and I also have to
>    provide "complete source code" for B, which is separate from A, yet
>    is "based on" A.
>
> * I can also distribute "modified forms of" "this software" (the
>    software you are giving to me) -- this probably means modified forms
>    I have made. In this case too I must provide information on how to
>    get "complete source code" for "*the* software" (emphasis added) as
>    well as complete source code of "any accompanying work that is based
>    on it". So I have modified A into A', and there's still potentially
>    some separate thing B that is "based on" "the software". I assume in
>    this case that "the software" is not what you started out calling
>    "this software" but is rather the "modified form" of "this software"
>    that I made.
>
> To me the result of all this is an undesirable degree of confusion. In
> any case I wonder whether you're certain the license is doing what you
> want it to do.  Can you give a concrete example of the second
> scenario?
>
> If you give me A, tell us what a modified form of A would look like,
> and tell us what the separate thing B -- the work that is "based on"
> (I assume) the modified form of A -- would look like.
>
> You speak of this being a "GPL-like wording". But GPLv3 explicitly
> unifies "modification" with "based on", and I'd say this is strongly
> implied in GPLv2 (whereas your license implies they are separate
> concepts, without attempting to define either).
>
> - RF
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review