[License-review] Request for Review and Approval of the Open Source Protection License (OSPL)

[Carlo Piana]

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
> A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, "Shuji Sado" <shujisado at gmail.com>
> Inviato: Domenica, 16 giugno 2024 2:35:17
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Request for Review and Approval of the Open Source Protection License (OSPL)

> On 6/14/24 19:10, Shuji Sado wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Harvey-san,
>> 
>>  > Additional Clauses > ------------------- > Preservation of Integrity:
>> Adaptations should respect the original Work's integrity and not
>> misrepresent the Author’s vision.
>> 
>> 
>> Is this additional clause included in the license?
>> I believe that this "Preservation of Integrity" clause restricts the
>> freedom to create derivative works.
>> 
>> This clause will likely be the biggest issue for approving this license.
> 
> Shuji-san is absolutely correct here.  This term of the license -- which
> seems to be core to your vision of the license -- is a violation of
> OSD6, "No discrimination against fields of endeavor".   One could also
> argue that it violates OSD3 and OSD10.
> 
> There are other minor issues with this license, but this restriction
> seems to be a core part of your vision, and there is just no way to make
> it open source.
> 
> Also, putting my software developer hat on, it's something I wouldn't
> touch with a 10-meter pole.  How could I know what the "original
> author's vision" is?  How do I know they won't change it every month or
> every week or just because they don't like me?

Wearing my lawyers' hat, I totally agree that this clause is fairly ambiguous a impractical. 

Agree also on the clear violation of the OSD of the same clause.

Incidentally, I have technical doubts on the attribution clause, besides the fact that it could also discriminate fields of endeavours.

"Commercial use" is a very vague and uncertain concept. It is a source of concern for NC clause in CC. Also, if you make modifications, how can you tell if it's for commercial or non commercial use? And what if for you it is non commercial, then it comes in the hands of a commercial entity and the attribution has been removed?

I share the opinion that this license is not Open Source (please, not "open-source") and cannot be made one without substantial edits.

In addition, it does not seem to follow the guidelines to submit new licenses. Please read https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process before submitting, and if you do, please use the courtesy of complying, especially in order to save this list members' collective time in pointing out issues that ought to have been considered prior the submission. Thank you.

Best

Carlo (in his own capacity)