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

Mon Apr 22 08:53:55 UTC 2024

McCoy,

this is precisely the very point I have been discussing during the prior round of approval of the now superseded version. I wasn't pleased by it then, I am not now, and the rationale I (I don't remember other criticism being voiced, but I might just be wrong) was given was not satisfactory.

IMHO the steward of the license should at least provide a clear interpretation upon which we could somewhat rely.

All the best,

Carlo

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "McCoy Smith" <mccoy at lexpan.law>
> A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Domenica, 21 aprile 2024 19:44:37
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Request for approval of the updated W3C Software license

> The part about this that gives me pause is that it appears to contemplate
> licensors adding non-removable IP disclaimers ("Any pre-existing intellectual
> property disclaimers" must be preserved). Given that the W3C patent policy,
> although royalty-free, allows participants to exclude out patents (see W3C
> patent policy, Sec 4), this provision would seem to allow licensors to exclude
> out some or all of their patents that are infringed by the licensed code. Which
> would allow this license to include disclaimers that would make it violative of
> OSD 1.
> I'd suggest that the Board consider whether this provision (which exists also in
> the old, previously approved, version) might be violative of the OSD. Perhaps
> the text itself (a variant of MIT) provides enough patent protection even if a
> W3C member opts out its patents to a specification, but I'm not sure it makes
> sense to have an approved license that allows for add-on IP disclaimers around
> copyright or patent.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
>> Behalf Of Carlo Piana
>> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 3:51 AM
>> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for approval of the updated W3C
>> Software license
>> 
>> 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.open
>> > source.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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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