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

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Thu Dec 10 02:59:06 UTC 2020


If your submission is a variant on APSL, it might help to point out how it differs (other than changing “Apple” to “Virutrace.”)

> On Dec 9, 2020, at 6:53 PM, Wayne Thornton <wayne at viratrace.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> In reference to the original thread created by Pamela, please allow me to address the questions posed.
> 
> First, regarding rationale: Our company is in the business of creating frameworks and software products which facilitate automated contact tracing initiatives across the globe. These frameworks and products must be GDPR- and HIPPA-compliant and have been designed to be such, with strict, ongoing legal review processes undertaken to ensure this. The frameworks and products that we create are designed to be utilized by governmental agencies and private corporations in the creation of applications and platforms which aid in the fight against COVID-19 and future pandemic scenarios. In order for this to be of benefit, the frameworks and software we develop must be open source, so that the governmental agencies and private corporations can be free to utilize them. Unfortunately, due to the legal compliance issues vis-a-vis GDPR and HIPPA, a level of control regarding development must be maintained. It is our position that the GNU and other OSI-approved licenses do not provide this level of control. 
> 
> Regarding the APSL: The APSL as currently approved is considered both an OSI and FSF license. Developers are free to utilize and modify the code without sharing the changes they create. This is wholly incompatible with the compliance issues previously discussed. Because of these issues, ViraTrace MUST have the ability to strictly control the usage and modifications made to the software code, and to undertake actions to revoke usage permissions for those governmental agencies and private corporations who make changes that substantially undermine the legal compliance. Such actions necessarily include the ability to obtain legal injunctions which force the removal of a product utilizing the modified and offending frameworks from the market so long as they use ViraTrace intellectual property. We have therefore modeled the ViraTrace Public Source License on the original APSL v. 1.0 which imposed the very limitations we are seeking to apply to our products.
> 
> As far as usability: The APSL is a license that grants Apple, Inc. the very rights we are seeking to apply to our products. It is our position that this would be considered a vanity, or non-reusable license which only applies to products released by Apple, Inc. This type of license has already been approved in various forms as a non-reusable license As such, we seek to have our license approved for similar reasons.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wayne M. Thornton, B.S., CPDT
> Co-Founder & Project Manager
> VIRATRACE©
> 720-766-0254 – Direct
> https://www.viratrace.org
>> Be sure to join our Microsoft Teams channel for updates and to contribute!
> 
> This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 19:19:47 -0700 Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote ----
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201209/d23b3417/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list