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

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:10 PM Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

> On 2018-09-26 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > I dislike the term “crayon license” as it seems fairly
> > pejorative


It's taken from a Monty Python sketch and sure, it's pejorative. Over the
20 year history of Open Source we have learned the value of legal
practitioners, perhaps you shouldn't complain :-)


> I'm troubled that some of my impression might reflect native-speaker-style
> bias.
>

He's handling the English language excellently. Just not legal language.
Attempting this without a lawyer just isn't a good idea any longer (we only
used to do it because we had no choice). That's the root issue with the
license.

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.


The Three Freedoms don't call for a freedom from terms compelling
redistribution of "private" modifications. Nor does Freedom Zero, which was
added after drafting of the OSD. So, here the FSF is operating on policy
not stated in the Four Freedoms. And it would be a totally wrong decision
to implement protection of so-called "private" modifications in the cloud
era, where the original redistribution terms that FSF so heavily leaned
upon are obsolete and "private" works are performed for the general public.

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.
>

In general, this has been handled by multiple licensing among projects
where it was an issue. I'm not hearing strong protests from the community
or even FSF. IMO, FSF needs to revisit the concept of private modification
for the cloud era.


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

Agree that requirements to identify developers and copyright holders (who
are sometimes not the same entity) are clearly permissible and in general
essential.

-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
Open Source Initiative
President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
Initiative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180928/833bc824/attachment.html>