[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Brendan Hickey]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 06:04 Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu> wrote:

> Thanks Bruce,
>
> I see that we hold a similar position here. The "Original contributor"
> language exposes a kind of fallacy, that the contribute by the originator
> is more "important" than the one of the other contributors. Just because it
> happens before, does not mean it's more important.  It might be. It might
> be not.
>

> An open source project should belong to the commons. If it's "commons with
> a leash in the hands of somebody only" as I said WRT patents, it's not
> commons.
>
> Carlo
>

Not only that, but even if this were a good idea the entire choice of law
clause is farcical. It enables some very adventurous jurisdiction shopping.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

This license should be rejected as a crayon license. It's so frought with
issues that I can't imagine it underwent serious legal review. An
environmental lawyer can tell you all about wetlands law, but they're
scarcely more qualified than me to assert that a license is well formed.

Brendan


On 26/09/2018 11:47, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> Other accepted licenses have "original contributor" language, but not
> granting so much power. OSI policy is they don't have to do something
> stupid because they've done it in the past. They would not be required to
> approve this language on the basis of usage in prior licenses.
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 11:23 AM Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu> wrote:
>
>> Ellmar, all,
>>
>> I remain quite puzzled by the main feature of the license, namely, the
>> right of *some* copyright holders in the initial work to decide on the
>> licensing of the *other* follow-on developers who are also copyright
>> holders. Isn't it a sort of discrimination, therefore against #5?
>>
>> I know that the same practical effect would be achieved by assigning the
>> code to a single project, but that it's always an option for any forker,
>> not a legal effect of the license. Here you give up your rights on your
>> copyright as a condition of the very license, which does quite limit the
>> rights of some versus the rights of others.
>>
>> My initial and non meditated reaction is that this license should be
>> rejected as long as Section 7 is concerned.
>>
>> A remark on the need to retain the ability of relicense or to "make
>> business" (AKA proprietary exploit) with the software. That's achieved with
>> a liberal, non copyleft license. But restricting others from doing
>> something that the initial developers can do, siphoning in the formers'
>> code and copyright, that does not seem acceptable.
>>
>> Or am I mistaken on the working of the condition?
>>
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/09/2018 09:57, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>>
>> Full Name: Convertible Free Software License Version 1.1
>> Short Identifier: C-FSL v1.1
>> URL: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.1.txt
>>
>> Rationale and Distinguish:
>> While the BSD license allows the whole world to re-license and while
>> re-licensing is virtually impossible with GPL since every contributor would
>> need to consent the C-FSL license goes a practical intermediate way
>> restricting the right to re-license to a group called the original authors.
>> That way open source developers are not excluded from making business with
>> others who want to base a proprietary product on the given piece of open
>> source software.
>>
>> Proliferation Category & Legal Review:
>> Other/Miscellaneous
>> A lawyer from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA) has already
>> checked C-FSL for its proliferation properties. He has found the license to
>> be compatible with other open source licenses. He decided that C-FSL can be
>> used together with the CC0 license in the FDtool (functional dependency
>> mining tool) project.
>>
>> list of software which uses C-FSL v1.1.:
>> qcoan: https://www.elstel.org/coan
>> xchroot, confinedrv, bundsteg, debcheckroot, dbschemacmd: also found at
>> www.elstel.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180926/76a754fb/attachment.html>