[License-review] Request for Approval of 'CasperLabs Open Source License (COSL)

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Tue Dec 10 19:49:22 UTC 2019

I was annoyed by the implication in the Preamble (repeated later) that the
Apache 2.0 license is not a FLOSS license: it is both an open-source
license per the OSI and a free license per the FSF.  I too thought of the
GPLv3, but of course that doesn't and can't contain any such kickback
term.  If you want to give away or share your software, do so.  If you want
to sell it, do that under a separate license.

In addition, the term in 14 saying clickwrap acceptance is valid is
nugatory.  If the other party is in a jurisdiction that doesn't accept
clickwrap as a form of contract acceptance (not the U.S. or the EU), then a
term _in the contract_ cannot possibly be in effect already, since the
party has not accepted it.

I agree that the OSI should not certify this license.  It is and continues
to be my position that a license may be Open Source and/or Free without
being certified, and I take no position on that question today.

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
What has four pairs of pants, lives in Philadelphia,
and it never rains but it pours?
        --Rufus T. Firefly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191210/feede80e/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list