[License-review] Request for License Review - BarrerSoftware License (BSL)v1.0

[Carlo Piana]

----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
> A: "Barrer Software Legal" <legal at barrersoftware.com>
> Cc: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Lunedì, 29 dicembre 2025 23:09:49
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Request for License Review - BarrerSoftware License (BSL)v1.0

> (switching to my personal account, since this has become a discussion)
> 
>> Thanks for writing back about this.
>> 
>> for Section 6, all we are saying with that part is that the software
>> itself should be free and remain free. services around it and things
>> like that is fine for commercialization but the software itself should
>> be free itself. we are still giving the full modify, use, distribute and
>> things like that, just that if a program or software made by a creator
>> wanted to make the software to be truly free, then it should be free period.
> 
> That's not what the text of your license says.  Your license has quite
> an expansive definition of commercialization, both in the preface and in
> the license text itself.  For example, your license currently prohibits
> charging for hosting, or for distribution bandwidth (the latter would be
> quite difficult to enforce).  It doesn't matter, though, because a
> blanket prohibition on charging for software packages has been
> consistently determined to be a violation of OSD6 by the OSI (as well as
> the FSF).
> 
> There is a long tradition of "no commercialization" licenses in
> software; it's a popular model for obvious reasons.  Such licenses are
> not, however, open source. This is why licenses like the GPL3 focus on
> requiring distributors to release source instead.
> 

I agree with everything that has been said. Free Software does not mean that people cannot make money out of if, only you cannot (among other things) ask a return as a condition for the grant. In that sense, the software must remain [f|F]ree. The entire Section 1 is non-Open Source and this license deserves no further discussion if not for educational purposes.

There are other evident shortcomings, including falsely stating that this license is compatible with GPLv3, as it clearly (and "apertis verbis") violates its section 7. Or the claim that the software shall be perpetually under the conditions of the license -- that's a false statement, as after the copyright protection expires, the software becomes public domain and no conditions can be imposed.


> Given that we've had two submissions which have been confused on this
> exact point this year, it's probably time for a blog post.


Yes.

Cheers

Carlo /in his personal capacity.

> 
>> 
>> On the naming of the license, we searched for something with that same
>> naming and didn't find that so now we are going to switch the name to
>> Barrer Open Source License (BOSL) so it follows what it should be for.
>> 
>> Thanks for getting back with me with your comments and hopefully this
>> can help you out better.
>> 
>> Daniel Elliott
>> 
>> Founder/Owner
>> 
>> Barrer Software
>> 
>> On Sunday, December 28, 2025 17:40 PST, Josh Berkus
>> <josh.berkus at opensource.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Holiday greetings, Mr. Elliott
>>>
>>> > Currently, no OSI-approved license provides strong anti-
>>> commercialization
>>> > protections while maintaining all four essential freedoms (use, study,
>>> > modify,
>>> > distribute).
>>>
>>> No OSI-approved license provides this, because no such license would be
>>> considered Open Source. This is precisely what clause 6 of the Open
>>> Source Definition covers, unambiguously:
>>>
>>> ---------------
>>> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>>>
>>> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
>>> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
>>> from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> As such, we are unable to approve your license, as there is no question
>>> that it is not open source. You are welcome to withdraw the submission,
>>> or we can file a rejection for the record according to the terms of
>>> License Review, if you wish.
>>>
>>> In addition, if you are going to publish an open-ish non-open source
>>> license, let me suggest that you NOT use the acronym "BSL"? That's
>>> already widely used by the Business Source License (also BuSL), another
>>> popular non-OSS license.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -- Josh Berkus
>>> OSI Board Member
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Josh Berkus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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