[License-review] For Legacy Approval: TOPPERS License

[Yutaka MATSUBARA]

Hello Carlo and other members,

Sorry for my late response.

On 7/9/15 20:53, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi there Yutaka,
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Yutaka MATSUBARA <yutaka at ertl.jp
> <mailto:yutaka at ertl.jp>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Carlo,
>
>                  (a) The above copyright notice, this use conditions,
>             and the
>                      disclaimer shown below must be shown without
>             modification in
>                      the document provided with the redistributed
>             software, such as
>                      the user manual.
>
>
>         The example is clear, but why is it not sufficient to
>         accompany any
>         distribution in such a form with a copy of the license itself?
>
>
>     The form with a copy of the license itself meets (a) clearly.
>     Do you have a concern?
>
>                  (b) How the software is to be redistributed must be
>             reported to the
>                      TOPPERS Project according to the procedure described
>                      separately.
>
>
>         If this was the only option available, this would make the entire
>         license strikingly non-compliant, IMHO. In addition, reference
>         to a
>         specific project ought to be omitted, otherwise the license would
>         practically be limited to a single use -- a one-way free ticket to
>         proliferation.
>
>     > I would advocate that, because the condition under b) is non-compliant,
>     > it should be removed for the license to be approved.
>
>     I think that if a user can do (b), then the user can do (a) as well.
>     What kinds of situations do you imagine?
>
>
> I am still concerned that the license could result in situations where
> a developer is unable to ensure a document is included with the
> software they are distributing (imagine a portion of the code is
> excerpted and used in an embedded function in a hardware component
> used for constructing other products). In this event, (b) would be the
> only option and it is clearly not OSD compliant. As such I don't
> believe the license as a whole can be OSD compliant.

I understood that the event (a portion of the code is excerpted and 
used in an embedded system) can be occurred. But, other OSD-compliant 
licenses such as BSD Licenses could result in the same situation 
(where a developer ...).

If your concern is common, I guess that a developer is also unable to 
ensure a document is included with the software in case of BSD 
Licenses. What do you think about it?

> Remember, open source code is frequently excerpted outside the scope
> of the original project, even if you are not aiming for that. In
> addition, OSI approves licenses for general use not just for your use.

I understood the above intention.

>     Several licences including names of specific projects/companies
>     have been already approved. I think that these licences seem to be
>     limited to use cases. What differences between these licenses and
>     TOPPERS license do you see?
>
>
> Indeed, licenses were historically approved with specific names in
> them. Since the anti-proliferation discussions OSI hosted nearly a
> decade ago, we have been avoiding new licenses that refer to specific
> projects. The license should be genericised for anyone to use before
> being approved.

Is it an official and unified comment from the OSI committee that OSI 
does not approve new licenses that refer to specific projects? Please 
let me know where it is noticed in the OSI website.

Thanks,
Yutaka