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

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-09-26 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> I dislike the term “crayon license” as it seems fairly
> pejorative, but I share the skepticism about the drafting
> rigor of this license.

I second both points, though I'm troubled that some of my
impression might reflect native-speaker-style bias.

> Section 3. “It is your obligation that the changed version
> of your sources will be available to the public for free
> within the time frame of a month at least if there is no
> undue hindrance by the authors to make it available.” This
> would implicate private changes.  As I think we have
> debated in the past (I believe wrt LZPL), this would
> remove Freedom Zero rights from users, which I think
> generally is a bad idea, causes massive compliance issues
> for users, and is outside of the spirit – if not the
> letter – of the OSD.

I'm not here to reopen debate on my own submission.  But
following on from our prior messages about publicizing
unwritten rules, I'd like to point out private changes as a
candidate.  There is an apparent schism with FSF on that
point, evident in OSI approval and FSF rejection of at least
Plan 9, RPL, and Open Watcom.  If that schism is mended,
because OSI has officially acceded to FSF's position, that
ought to be made known, as well as what's to become of the
old licenses.

> Section 5. “When applying changes to the source code you
> need to leave your name, your email address and the date
> of your modifications so that other people may contact
> you. If a contributor should not have a steady access to
> the internet or a satisfying access to an emailing service
> he may leave another way by which he can be contacted.”
> This seems to fall afoul of lots of privacy law and
> possibly GDPR (note this is a positive obligation, not a
> negative requirement a la “you may not remove
> identification information” per many OSI approved
> licenses).

Compare (d) of the Developer Certificate of Origin, added in
version 1.1.

> Section 7.  As others have already stated, I believe this
> violates OSD 5 as it discriminates between “original
> authors” and subsequent authors in the rights conveyed.

A few provisions come to mind:

- "Standard Version" protections in Artistic 2.

- "Initial Developer" terms under CDDL.

- Initial developer terms under QPL.

All are free software licenses per "Various Licenses and
Comments about Them".

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933