[License-review] License Committee Report - 2013-03-06

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Mar 8 03:08:46 UTC 2013


This only works in the Sleepycat license because Sleepycat is a library. But we'd have better language for that case today.

Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

>That paragraph in the OSD is regarding simple aggregation rather than
>components of a single program.
>
>The problem is that "makes use of" is not clear. Is it part of the same
>program? Is it a derivative work? Does it just make use of the program
>in the way a client makes use of a server over a remote connection?
>
>This is sufficient reason for the license to be sent back for
>rewriting.
>
>Thanks
>
>Bruce
>
>Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:36:03PM +0100, Hadrien G. wrote:
>>> Well, I'd like to add the current MOSL draft to this list, since as
>>> far as I can tell no one has objected to the current wording for a
>>> month :
>>
>>I would like to raise a question about something in it:
>>
>>> * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
>>> how to obtain complete source code for this software, and any
>>> accompanying software that makes use of 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.
>>
>>This is similar to thought subtly different from the Sleepycat
>>License.
>>
>>I would ask the OSI to consider whether this consistent with OSD 9:
>>
>>  The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
>>  distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
>>  license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
>>  same medium must be open-source software.
>>
>>The Sleepycat License may be different because there is a history of
>>it being treated as not only FOSS but GPL-compatible. 
>>
>> - RF
>>_______________________________________________
>>License-review mailing list
>>License-review at opensource.org
>>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>-- 
>Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130307/823f8711/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list