[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017

[Richard Fontana]

I believe the following are all the outstanding licenses submitted
between October 2015 and the present, plus NOSA 2.0:


NASA Open Source Agreeement 2.0
===============================

Original submission:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001944.html

Comments: See https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-January/002924.html

Recommendation: Reject.


TOPPERS License	(international)
=================================

See:
     https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/thread.html
     https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002597.html
     https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-November/002602.html

It is possible that things were left a bit unclear but from that last
message it seems we were waiting for the license submitter to provide
an affidavit which was never provided.

Recommendation: Reject without prejudice.


BSD + Patent License
====================

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-January/002640.html

Comments: I see that the last posting to this list on BSD + Patent was
McCoy Smith's revised text:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-January/002709.html

For some reason I had it in my head that this license had been
temporarily withdrawn from consideration so that an opinion from the
FSF confirming GPL compatibility could be obtained, but re-reading the
thread I see no basis for this other than that someone suggested this
as a prudent course of action.

Recommendation: Ask McCoy Smith to clarify whether he wishes for
review of the BSD + Patent license to be revived (based on the January
27 2016 submission or some subsequent revision), and if so encourage
further discussion on this list.


Zentao Public License
=====================

Submission:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-June/002800.html

Comments: Submission did not fully follow approval
requirements. Substantive discussion focused on the badgeware issue;
some suggested that legacy approval might be a more appropriate
path. 

Recommendation: Reject.


Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0)
=============================================

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-October/002856.html

Comments: Questions were raised about conformance with the
nondiscrimination policy of OSD 5. It was suggested that the license
be redrafted so that all downstream modifications are licensed under
the Apache License 2.0 (rather than just upstream licensors receiving
a copy under the Apache License 2.0).

Recommendation: At request of license submitter and others, OSI to
provide general guidance by commenting on whether a license that
privileges one class of licensees by giving it greater permissions
relative to other licensees conflicts with OSD or should be
discouraged or disapproved for non-OSD policy reasons.


European Space Agency Public Licenses (ESA-PL)
==============================================

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-December/002902.html

Comments: Suite of three licenses. Some initial questions were raised
on the list but the license submitter has not yet responded.

Recommendation: Encourage further review and discussion on list. 


Octopus License
===============

Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-December/002906.html

Comments: Submission does not conform to all the requirements stated
at https://opensource.org/approval. Submitter has been asked to review
the requirements and provide all requested supporting data.  Some
preliminary discussion has taken place on the list.

Recommendation: No action at this time.


Richard