[License-review] Submission of Forever Free & Open License (FFOL) for OSI Approval

Tue Oct 15 09:06:56 UTC 2024

Luciano, 

McCoy has summarized the main concerns your license seems to raise. The inability to charge a price for accessing the program is directly against OSD #6. Under the OSD you cannot charge more than and effective prices for giving a copy of the full corresponding source code. But it bears no consequences to the ability to even sell the software as such. What you cannot do, conversely, is to charge (or put other restrictions) for the /permissions/ that the license must carry, including that of copying, making modifications and distributing modified copies, which shall always remain fully [f|F]ree and unencumbered. 

There are several shortcomings in the legal text that require some chiseling, but the above bit is inherently a big hurdle to pass. 

Also, and I will never get tired of saying it, I am intellectually against "original" and "modifications" as two different statuses of the software. All Open Source software has an upstream and potentially a downstream and the idea should IMHO be that these are the relevant states. If I take code A and add code B to it, and someone adds code C, why should authors of B and C be treated less favorably than author of code A, just because the work initiated there? I have written and published lousy code because I am a lousy coder, some has brought it to decency with substantial effort, why should I have special treatment? And what about combining two different pieces of software to make a larger work? 

Any modified work should become an original work for the purposes of the license, if the contribution amounts to a copyrighted one, and so on. The governance should be left to a different layer of rules, not to the license. 

Finally, I believe that the applicable law clause is useless. On the one hand it is repetitive of the provision in the Berne Convention. On the other side, it can be vague and prone to challenges. The GPL and other licenses avoided having an applicable law provision for a reason. I would rather choose one jurisdiction spelling it out, than choosing one by reference, knowing that combining two pieces of software under the same license but with two different applicable laws could make it legally incompatible. Creative Commons dropped this clause with version 4. 

Cheers 

Carlo (in his personal capacity) 

Da: "McCoy Smith" <mccoy at lexpan.law> 
A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org> 
Inviato: Domenica, 13 ottobre 2024 17:16:50 
Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Submission of Forever Free & Open License (FFOL) for OSI Approval 

BQ_BEGIN

Luciano: 
The process for license approval has a couple of other requirements, which it doesn't look like you've done completely here: 

[ https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process | https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process ] 

It looks like you haven't done the following (possibly others as well): 

*Affirmatively state that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, including specifically affirming it meets OSD 3, 5, 6 and 9. 
*Identify what projects are already using the license. 

*Describe any legal review the license has been through, including whether it was drafted by a lawyer. 

I haven't looked through this license in detail, but it seems that a purpose of your license is to preclude charging a fee for software under the license, which likely violates OSD 6 (although the definition is not explicit on that point, I think it falls within the statement "For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business"). 
On 10/12/2024 12:08 PM, [ mailto:onaicul2008 at gmail.com | onaicul2008 at gmail.com ] wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN

Hello, 

I am submitting a new license, the Forever Free and Open License (FFOL), for OSI approval. Below is a brief overview of the license, how it complies with the Open Source Definition (OSD), and why it is a necessary addition to the OSI-approved licenses. 

Overview : 

The Forever Free and Open License (FFOL) ensures that the Licensed Work remains free (both as in freedom and as in price), requiring that all modifications be distributed under the same license. It enforces open access to modifications, prohibits charging for the work itself, and ensures that redistributions retain proper attribution to original authors. 

Compliance with OSD : 

    * The FFOL complies with the OSD by providing the rights to freely use, modify, and redistribute the Licensed Work. 
    * It guarantees open access to the source code and requires that modifications are made publicly accessible without restriction. 
    * It enforces strong copyleft principles while promoting open collaboration and contribution. 

Rationale : 

The FFOL is necessary to offer a stricter copyleft license that ensures no barriers are introduced to access or modify works. It closes loopholes found in some existing licenses, such as preventing gatekeeping by private groups or organizations. It also emphasizes keeping the works fully accessible and transparent for everyone. 

A key distinction of the FFOL is that it ensures the works remain free not only in terms of freedom (as defined by other licenses like GPL) but also in terms of price. Unlike the GPL, which explicitly permits charging for redistributions (as long as freedom to modify is maintained), the FFOL prohibits any fees for access to the Licensed Work itself. This guarantees that no one is ever charged for using, sharing, or accessing the work, ensuring a price-free distribution model. 

Another important element of the FFOL is its strong emphasis on proper attribution. It ensures that every contributor is credited strictly for their specific contributions, with clear boundaries set between original authorship and modifications. This approach promotes transparency and fairness in recognizing contributions across the lifespan of a project, avoiding excessive or insufficient attribution for each contributor. 

Attached is the final version of the license text. I look forward to discussing it further with the OSI community. 

Best regards, 

Luciano Girotti. 

_______________________________________________
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 [ mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org | License-review at lists.opensource.org ] [ http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org | http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org ] 

BQ_END

_______________________________________________ 
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 
BQ_END

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241015/d29bf599/attachment.htm>