[License-review] Request for approval of the updated W3C Software license

[Carlo Piana]

Dear Mr. Wenning,

thank you for your submission. I am replying in my personal capacity of Open Source lawyer, without any of my statements and opinions meant or be construed as an official position of OSI in any manner.

I have in the past expressed some reservations as to how the license, in its previous incarnations, is drafted, but since it has been approved and it has not been substantially changed, I will defer to the previous evaluation and will not reopen the discussion. 

On a general note, and building from the experience of retrospectively reviewing all the previously approved licenses, I note some points that I submit to you and to all future drafters of similar licenses.

This license seems conceived more as a one-off license that a contributor to a standard should prepare when a reference implementation is submitted. However, an Open Source license in my reading should be conceived to be used and easily implemented in all subsequent modifications and combinations. I will suggest here after a few possible doubts that a downstream developer could have.

- First bullet. "The full text of this NOTICE". What is the "notice" part of the license? The entirety?
- Second bullet. Someone getting the software and wanting to reuse may be confused, not understanding what is the document you refer to, which is not defined. 
- Third bullet. It refers to a "W3C document", but why, since this is a software license? Maybe you will put a clarification note as to where you host the document and what it is meant to be. This clarification should be available irrespective of the availability of the web resources, including by OSI public repository of licenses. All licenses should be as much as possible self-contained and self-sufficient.
- Disclaimers. This does not raise particular concerns, but may I point out that the disclaimer only benefits copyright holders and not all who distribute, promote the software as is and could be left out in the cold? By contrast, the GPLv3 license provides "...OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE".

Again, this is not meant to raise any objection, or to imply criticism to the drafting, but as a general remark to any who would like to create a new Open Source license.

All the best,

Carlo 


 

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo at w3.org>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Giovedì, 18 aprile 2024 19:42:18
> Oggetto: [License-review] Request for approval of the updated W3C Software license

> Hello,
> 
> W3C has registered its Software Notice and License with OSI. OSI
> approved the 2015 version of the license on November 29, 2017.
> 
> https://opensource.org/license/w3c
> 
> On 2023-01-01, W3C changed its underlying structure and legal status.
> This affects the wording of the license registered with OSI.
> 
> W3C updated the 2015 Software license with the necessary legal
> information and created the 2023 Software license.
> 
> The main change is in the copyright notice. There is no change in the
> legal text, except for the attribution to the new legal entity moving
> from W3C hosts to the new W3C legal entity.
> 
> The new license can be seen online here:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/copyright/software-license-2023/
> 
> and attached as text version.
> 
> Asserting that, like the 2015 version, the 2023 version of the W3C
> Software license continues to comply with the Open Source Definition.
> Especially it continues to comply OSD principle 3 by allowing for
> derivative works, principle 5 and 6 by avoiding all discriminations and
> principle 9 as it does not affect combinability.
> 
> W3C therefore humbly requests the approval of the 2023 version of the
> W3C Software license by OSI and the update of the license stored in
> 
> https://opensource.org/license/w3c
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
>  --
>  Rechtsanwalt Rigo Wenning
>  ERCIM/W3C Legal counsel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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