[License-review] OSD #9 would not make SSPL OSD-incompliant

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Thu Oct 25 02:44:27 UTC 2018

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:34 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> OSL 3.0 is explicitly not a license to everyone. It defines as follows to
clarify that ambiguous term "mere use":

> 14) *Definition of "You" in This License.* "You" throughout this License,
> whether in upper or lower case, means an individual or a legal entity
> exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this
> License. For legal entities, "You" includes any entity that controls, is
> controlled by, or is under common control with you. For purposes of this
> definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
> direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise,
> or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares,
> or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

Oh come on. There is no case in which there is not a "you" to which the
license would apply, and the same "you" is implied by most licenses.

> They must, however, obey the other conditions in the license, including
> copyleft and network-copyleft, patent reciprocity and defense, attribution,
> etc.

Yes, but the "network copyleft" here is not attempting to extend the effect
of the license beyond classical derivative works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181024/bc0a903b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list