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

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Wed Dec 11 18:28:12 UTC 2019

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
Behalf Of Chris Lamb
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:05 AM
>>To: License submissions for OSI review
<license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>>Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Approval of 'CasperLabs Open
Source License (COSL)

>>Josh Berkus wrote:

>>> Hey, several folks have pointed out that this license is unpassable.  
>>> We can probably stop discussing it; it's really not a race to find out 
>>> how many violations of the OSD we can rack up.  One is enough.

>>I would tend to agree. There are many flaws that mean a full review cycle
seems somewhat unnecessary and would, at the very least, take time and
energy from this list's participants from other worthy endeavours.

The one benefit I can see to "racking up as many violations as possible" is
that it prevents a lengthy iterative process where submitter addresses the
violations identified upon first submission, resubmits, then is told there
are other violations not previously identified.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

However, licenses written which intentionally violate OSD 5 & 6 by their
terms don't seem to be to be within the spirit of the submission process,
which has as its first submission criterion: "Read the Open Source
Definition and ensure that your license complies with it"*

*If you've got a problem with any part of the OSD, in particular OSD 5 or 6,
and think they are out of date or should be changed, I think that discussion
should happen on license-discuss, not license-review.

More information about the License-review mailing list