[License-review] Approval Request - ViraTrace Public Source License 1.0

[Kevin P. Fleming]

My non-lawyer reading is that this is the AGPL 'on steroids'; if you
use the code 'to provide a service' of any form, to anyone, and you
have modified the code, you must make the modified code available.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:06 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> I’m interested in the statement on legal review: “NONE”
>
> I don’t think this is required, but generally recommended. Do you intend at any point to have legal review?
>
>
>
> FWIW, this license appears to be based substantially on the FedTax Public Source License: https://dev.taxcloud.net/ftpsl/ (which, AFAIK, has never been reviewed by OSI).
>
>
>
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 5:56 PM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org; wayne at viratrace.us
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval Request - ViraTrace Public Source License 1.0
>
>
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> Under "Rationale," can you explain what about this license is suited for your business model when other existing licenses aren't? What does it accomplish that no other license does?
>
> Can you tell us how it differs from the APSL?
>
> Why is the license category "non-reusable"? That's not a category we are inclined to use for a new license. One of the value of the licenses is that they are reusable, so it would be helpful to understand why your license isn't designed for others to use yet is covers a situation that no other license covers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> On 11/30/2020 5:14 PM, Wayne Thornton wrote:
>
> Attached is the Plaintext copy of the proposed ViraTrace Public Source License (v 1.0).
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale: ViraTrace is an independent software development company with proprietary and open source code which may be used commercially by the company. No other license fits our business model closely enough to be of benefit.
>
>
>
> Distinguish: This license is very similar in context to the APSL (v 1.0).
>
>
>
> Legal Review: NONE
>
>
>
> Proliferation Category: Non-Reusable License
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
>
>
> License-review mailing list
>
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org