[License-review] Comment on MOSL and similar licenses

Tue Apr 2 03:01:01 UTC 2013

Hadrien G. wrote in the proposed MOSL:
> "For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for
all modules it contains,"

Over the years since the introduction of the original GPL, many people have
proposed licenses that attempt to extend the requirement to disclose source
code to works those people didn't create themselves. That doesn't fly,
either under antitrust law (for large software distributors) or as a
practical business matter (for small software vendors). Nobody knowledgeable
will use software if it requires the disclosure of "all modules" contained
in an "executable file".

If a software work were protected by a patent license rather than a
copyright license, its distributor might be accused of "patent misuse" for a
provision like this in his license. It is one thing to prevent one's own
patents from being used by third parties; it is another thing altogether to
interfere with what people can do with *other* things that they own by
asserting those *limited* patent rights. 

While copyright law is different from patent law, there is also a concept of
copyright misuse. [1] This can be summarized as an attempt by a licensor to
extend her legitimate rights to license her own work under terms of her own
choosing by placing restrictions or conditions on the copyrights of works
she doesn't own.

Have you reviewed that prospect for the MOSL with your attorney in your
jurisdiction? 

/Larry

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse 

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadrien G. [mailto:knights_of_ni at gmx.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:16 AM
To: license-review at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] License Committee Report - for board meeting
of 2013-04-03

A few updates on my part regarding the MOSL's situation...

I have since proposed a fourth working draft (
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-January/000505.
html
), which removed the unnecessary "unless agreed to in writing" part from the
disclaimer.

Following the comments of Richard Fontana and Bruce Perens regarding OSD
9 compliance, I have also proposed (
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000538.ht
ml
) a wording change which follows Bruce Perens' suggestion of a GPL-like
wording, so as to clarify which software is covered by the license.

I have not received any comment on the updated wording for more than two
weeks, so I can only guess that it means no one has a problem with it. 
Assuming this is the case, here's a fifth working draft which includes it.

===

**************************************************
***    Modular Open Software License (MOSL)    ***
***       Working Draft 5, 11 March 2013       ***
***  Copyright (c) 2012-2013 Hadrien Grasland  ***
**************************************************

Redistribution and use of this software, or modified forms of it, are
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain this list of conditions, the
above copyright notice, and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must include a copy of this list of
conditions, the above copyright notice, and the following disclaimer,
whether in documentation or in other provided materials.
* 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. Source code must either be included in the distribution, or
be available for no more than the cost of its distribution. For an
executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules
it contains, save for modules or files that are typically provided with the
operating system on which the executable file runs.

UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OF THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE,
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

Le 28/03/2013 15:10, Luis Villa a écrit :
> This email is my report for licenses currently submitted to the OSI.
> If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the list's comments or 
> conclusions, please say so before the meeting of April 3rd.
>
> CeCILL 2.1
> ========
>
> Submission: 
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/00041
> 4.html
>
> Comments: Several clarifying questions were asked, indicating the 
> license had been read, but no list members challenged the OSD 
> compliance of the license itself.
>
> Recommendation: Board should approve.
>
> EUPL 1.2
> =======
>
> Submission: 
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000
> 540.html
>
> Comments: John Cowan reviewed the changes to the (earlier-approved) 
> versions of the EUPL, and found nothing objectionable.
>
> Recommendation: Board should approve.
>
> MOSL (working draft 3)
> =================
> Submission: 
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-January/0
> 00505.html
>
> Comments: Richard Fontana and Bruce Perens objected to current 
> language on redistribution as a violation of OSD 9.
>
> Recommendation: Not accept at this time.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review