[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

[Mike Milinkovich]

Wow, this thread has degraded to the point of silliness.

Every OSI Board member who has commented on this license has said positive
things about it. ‎It's a good license. It fills a niche that we have long
wanted filled.

Can everyone please just chill, and let the review process run its course?
And speaking of which, can we please keep this thread on the topic of
actually discussing the license, instead of last century's political
battles?



On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Chris Jones <chrisjones at spin.net.au> wrote:

> Not having this license approved would demonstrate (again) the lack of
> clear and consistent initiative by the OSI to understand and approve new
> licenses.
>
> I see too many of these examples.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Jones
>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:22:40 +0000
>> From: "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval:  BSD + Patent License
>> Message-ID: <D2C26A87.286D2%Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Is there any reason then to approve this license if the FSF does not
>> explicitly state it is GPL V2 compatible?
>>
>>
>> Why guess?  There¹s no point in approving a niche license that doesn¹t
>> actually fulfill its niche.
>>
>> My opinion is step 1 is to submit to the FSF for approval rather than
>> the OSI since it appears it passes here other than for proliferation.
>> If the FSF publically says it¹s GPL v2 compatible then approval here
>> should be relatively straightforward.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> On 1/18/16, 3:32 AM, "License-review on behalf of Mark Wielaard"
>> <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of mark at klomp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> >> McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay
>> >> FOSS license. But AFL 3.0 did that very thing 10 years ago. The only
>> >> reason for AFL 3.0 not being accepted generally for that same purpose
>> >> is the FSF's complaint, "contains contract provisions." That kind of
>> >> quasi-legal balderdash is directly relevant to what McCoy and others
>> >> want to do.
>> >>
>> >> And if AFL 3.0 isn't satisfactory for some random reason, then use
>> >> the Apache 2.0 license.
>> >
>> >Sorry Larry, but these are impractical suggestions wrt reviewing the
>> >license submission and intent of the BSD + Patent License. The AFLv3
>> >is GPL incompatible because it contains contract provisions requiring
>> >distributors to obtain the express assent of recipients to the license
>> >terms. The extra restrictions making ASLv2 incompatible with GPLv2 have
>> >already been discussed. Both are clearly documented cases of expressly
>> >incompatible licenses by the GPL license steward the FSF. I understand
>> >your desire to mention your disagreement with the license steward and
>> >discuss alternative legal interpretations of what it means to be
>> >compatible with the GPL then what might be generally accepted and
>> >used in practice. But it is offtopic and not a very constructive
>> >discussion in the context of this license submission, which doesn't
>> >contain any of those extra restrictions.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Mark
>> >_______________________________________________
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160119/52714930/attachment.html>