License Committee Report for July 2007

[Russ Nelson]

I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion.

Title: Open Source Hardware License
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12911:200707:jmkojcilhopeddgknmdj
Revised here:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12941:200707:jmkojcilhopeddgknmdj
License: In the submission
Comments: No consensus on license-discuss that OSI should be in the
  business of Open Source Hardware.
Recommend: more discussion, with some direction from the board.  Is
  this a direction that OSI should go in?  And, even if we do, is a
  license particular to hardware needed?


--

Title: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12849:200706:pdjppaipccgjbdgekdna
License: in the submission
Comments: Andrew Oliver: Tomorrows software will include Socialtext at
  the bottom of the stack of a much larger aggregation of software.
  Rick Moen: Let's be tolerant of licence-created problem scenarios that
  seem, at best, on the far end of "unlikely to actually occur".
Recommend: I think the board is on its own on this one.  My personal
  recommendation (as a board member, not the chair) is to approve the
  license and see if it achieves the Open Source effect.  The APL was
  not a widely used license, I suspect because of its complexity.
  Let's give attribution requirements another chance in a simpler
  license.  If such a licensed software does not achieve the Open
  Source effect, it will put the issue to rest.

--
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
> for the current set of licenses under discussion.

Hi, Russ--

What about GPLv3 & LGPLv3 submitted by Chris DiBona, and the  
"Simplified BSD license" submitted by DES?

--
-Chuck

[Russ Nelson]

Chuck Swiger writes:
 > On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
 > > for the current set of licenses under discussion.
 >
 > What about GPLv3 & LGPLv3 submitted by Chris DiBona, and the  
 > "Simplified BSD license" submitted by DES?

Neither has been submitted For Approval.  As written, they're just
suggestions, desires, wishes, or hopes that we might approve them.

--
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!

[Chris DiBona]

Hey...I specifically submit GPLv3 (sans attachments) and lgplv3 for
-approval-. For cripes sake.

Chris

On 7/30/07, Russ Nelson <nelson@...> wrote:

> Chuck Swiger writes:
>  > On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>  > > I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
>  > > for the current set of licenses under discussion.
>  >
>  > What about GPLv3 & LGPLv3 submitted by Chris DiBona, and the
>  > "Simplified BSD license" submitted by DES?
>
> Neither has been submitted For Approval.  As written, they're just
> suggestions, desires, wishes, or hopes that we might approve them.
>
> --
> --my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
> Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | they've never studied it.
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Timothy McIntyre]

The OSI, to its credit, requires compliance with the following procedures, in order to have a license approved:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval

This ensures that the community has an opportunity to thoroughly "vet" a proposed license before it is OSI-approved.

-Tim

Chris DiBona wrote:

Hey...I specifically submit GPLv3 (sans attachments) and lgplv3 for
-approval-. For cripes sake.

Chris

On 7/30/07, Russ Nelson nelson@... wrote:
  

Chuck Swiger writes:
 > On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
 > > for the current set of licenses under discussion.
 >
 > What about GPLv3 & LGPLv3 submitted by Chris DiBona, and the
 > "Simplified BSD license" submitted by DES?

Neither has been submitted For Approval.  As written, they're just
suggestions, desires, wishes, or hopes that we might approve them.

--
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!

    

[Michael Poole]

Timothy McIntyre writes:

> The OSI, to its credit, requires compliance with the following procedures, in
> order to have a license approved:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval
>
> This ensures that the community has an opportunity to thoroughly "vet" a
> proposed license before it is OSI-approved.

Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.

It is absolutely not to OSI's credit to require compliance to those
particular procedures when the license is a successor to one of the
most widely used open source licenses in the world.

But, fine, if you want to go down the checklist:

1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html (GPLv3),
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html (LGPLv3)

2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
   respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
   the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
   address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.

3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
   forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
   GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
   modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
   prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
   converted to use the GPLvN license.

4. cc'ed.  I am identifying myself hereby.  If an OSI license approval
   person wants to identify me to license-discuss again, I have no
   objection.

Michael Poole

[Chris DiBona]

Okeydokey then:

GPLv3
1) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
2) GPLv2
3) Apache, Bsd and gplv2 licensed with the or-any-later clause can be
used by v3. V3 code can be adapted into Affero. These are one-way
promotions.
4) License sent.
5) I believe that the OSI cannot approve non-written amendments and
each should be required to be put through this process before the user
would be able to call it osi approved.
6) Monitoring...

LGPLv3
1) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
2) LGPL
3) previous versions of the lgpl, bsd and likely others.
4) License sent here.
5) I believe that the OSI cannot approve non-written amendments and
each should be required to be put through this process before the user
would be able to call it osi approved.
6) Monitoring.


On 7/30/07, Timothy McIntyre <tmcintyre@...> wrote:

>
>  The OSI, to its credit, requires compliance with the following procedures,
> in order to have a license approved:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval
>
>  This ensures that the community has an opportunity to thoroughly "vet" a
> proposed license before it is OSI-approved.
>
>  -Tim
>
>  Chris DiBona wrote:
>  Hey...I specifically submit GPLv3 (sans attachments) and lgplv3 for
> -approval-. For cripes sake.
>
> Chris
>
> On 7/30/07, Russ Nelson <nelson@...> wrote:
>
>
>  Chuck Swiger writes:
>  > On Jul 23, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>  > > I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
>  > > for the current set of licenses under discussion.
>  >
>  > What about GPLv3 & LGPLv3 submitted by Chris DiBona, and the
>  > "Simplified BSD license" submitted by DES?
>
> Neither has been submitted For Approval. As written, they're just
> suggestions, desires, wishes, or hopes that we might approve them.
>
> --
> --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | People have strong opinions
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | about economics even though
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone] | they've never studied it.
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | Curious how that is!
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole@...):

> Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
> software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.

Thus polluting our meme pool with a particularly moronic and annoying
advocacy troll.   Why, thank you, Michael!

> 2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
>    respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
>    the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
>    address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.

Half-assed comparison (except for your concluding sentence, which,
arguably, _is_, in the context of the question, fully ass-enabled for
the enterprise, as an answer to "If your proposed license is derived
from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have
changed").  A proper submission would list major points of change, not
just wave your hands wildly.

> 3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
>    forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
>    GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
>    modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
>    prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
>    converted to use the GPLvN license.

An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.

> 4. cc'ed.

Was some particular part of "send your proposed licence by e-mail to
license-approval@..." unclear?

[Michael Poole]

Rick Moen writes:

> Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole@...):
>
>> Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
>> software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.
>
> Thus polluting our meme pool with a particularly moronic and annoying
> advocacy troll.   Why, thank you, Michael!

If I wanted to be an annoying advocacy troll, I would have made a big
deal about "free" software versus "open source" software.  Rather than
indirectly talk about what is required, I attempted to provide what is
necessary to move this discussion forward.  For that, you are welcome.

>> 2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
>>    respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
>>    the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
>>    address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.
>
> Half-assed comparison (except for your concluding sentence, which,
> arguably, _is_, in the context of the question, fully ass-enabled for
> the enterprise, as an answer to "If your proposed license is derived
> from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have
> changed").  A proper submission would list major points of change, not
> just wave your hands wildly.

If you don't like what the process requires, amend the process.
Timothy McIntyre sharly made the point that the OSI "requires
compliance" with those procedures.  I followed them.

>> 3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
>>    forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
>>    GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
>>    modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
>>    prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
>>    converted to use the GPLvN license.
>
> An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.

Again, if you do not like the procedure, amend it.  It does not
specify in which direction(s) or aspect(s) compatibility should be
addressed.  If you have any specific questions, please ask them -- I
cannot read minds.  (Besides, isn't that what license-discuss is for?)

Michael Poole

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole@...):

> If you don't like what the process requires, amend the process.
> Timothy McIntyre sharly made the point that the OSI "requires
> compliance" with those procedures.  I followed them.

No, not really.  Thus my point, in fact.

> > An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.
>
> Again, if you do not like the procedure, amend it.

Again, not that it's a big thing, but you didn't actually _follow_ that
procedure.

You're welcome to ignore OSI's requested procedure, and even to waste
our time berating it as "bureaucracy" (I guess), but berating it and then
claiming to have satisfied it when, in fact, you ignored the parts
requiring actual work, is just a bit much.

[Radcliffe, Mark]

As General Counsel of OSI, I agree with Rick. Simply because it is the
"successor" to a widely used license does not mean that it should be
given an automatic approval. In fact, the GPLv3 is quite different from
GPLv2 and deserves a standard review.

Since I was the Chair of Committee C and spent many hours in proposing
changes to the draft, I have a lot invested in the success of GPLv3 and
I am confident that it will pass the review, but we should not short
circuit the process merely because it is a "successor". For a summary of
the differences, you can see my blog:
http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick@...]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 6:51 PM
To: license-discuss@...
Subject: Re: License Committee Report for July 2007

Quoting Michael Poole (mdpoole@...):

> Microsoft thanks you, I am sure, for your efforts to make open source
> software stiflingly bureaucratic and stupidly myopic.

Thus polluting our meme pool with a particularly moronic and annoying
advocacy troll.   Why, thank you, Michael!

> 2. These licenses are most similar to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2
>    respectively.  There are a variety of ambiguities and weaknesses in
>    the prior versions' copyleft that the new versions attempt to
>    address.  I did not change anything in these licenses.

Half-assed comparison (except for your concluding sentence, which,
arguably, _is_, in the context of the question, fully ass-enabled for
the enterprise, as an answer to "If your proposed license is derived
from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have
changed").  A proper submission would list major points of change, not
just wave your hands wildly.

> 3. The suggested usage of prior versions of these licenses are
>    forward-compatible with these versions: works licensed "under the
>    GPL version 2, or at your option, any later version" may be
>    modified, distributed, etc, under the terms of GPLv3.  Likewise for
>    prior LGPLed code.  Works under LGPLvN (for a given N) may also be
>    converted to use the GPLvN license.

An almost 100% total success at failing to cover licence compatibility.

> 4. cc'ed.

Was some particular part of "send your proposed licence by e-mail to
license-approval@..." unclear?


_____________________________________________________________________________________

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to postmaster@...

Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav-2]

Timothy McIntyre <tmcintyre@...> writes:
> The OSI, to its credit, requires compliance with the following
> procedures, in order to have a license approved:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval
>
> This ensures that the community has an opportunity to thoroughly "vet"
> a proposed license before it is OSI-approved.

Great, so let me forward a copy of my misfiled application to
license-approval@...:

> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ns0.crynwr.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <license-approval@...>:
> We only accept license approval requests at this address.

Very funny.

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

[Chris DiBona]

As an FYI, I submitted mine to license-approval@... as well.

On 7/30/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> wrote:

> Timothy McIntyre <tmcintyre@...> writes:
> > The OSI, to its credit, requires compliance with the following
> > procedures, in order to have a license approved:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval
> >
> > This ensures that the community has an opportunity to thoroughly "vet"
> > a proposed license before it is OSI-approved.
>
> Great, so let me forward a copy of my misfiled application to
> license-approval@...:
>
> > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ns0.crynwr.com.
> > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> >
> > <license-approval@...>:
> > We only accept license approval requests at this address.
>
> Very funny.
>
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Senior Software Developer
> Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Michael Poole]

Radcliffe, Mark writes:

> As General Counsel of OSI, I agree with Rick. Simply because it is the
> "successor" to a widely used license does not mean that it should be
> given an automatic approval. In fact, the GPLv3 is quite different from
> GPLv2 and deserves a standard review.

I am not asking for automatic approval.  I am just trying to get
discussion on the merits or flaws of the license -- rather than
arguments whether anyone has yet filled out the proper forms and
guessed how to get license-approval to accept a review request.  The
latter is what seems silly for a license like the GPL, but is
apparently the current hang-up.

Unfortunately, thanks to replies containing much more snark than
information, I am no closer now to understanding how to move things
forward than I was when I read Timothy McIntyre's email.  The changes
in GPLv3 seem deep enough that over-analogy with GPLv2 could obscure
important changes, which is the major reason I did not and do not feel
comfortable enumerating the changes.

Michael Poole

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav-2]

"Chris DiBona" <cdibona@...> writes:
> As an FYI, I submitted mine to license-approval@... as
> well.

Did yours bounce?  If not, what is the magic sauce?

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

[Wilson, Andrew-2]

Chris DiBona wrote:

> LGPLv3
> 1) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
> 2) LGPL
> 3) previous versions of the lgpl, bsd and likely others.

Chris, as you know, the actual compatibility matrix for LGPL is really
much more complicated.  LPGLv3 is compatible with GPLv3, with
LGPLv2-or-later and
GPLv2-or-later, BSD, and can even be linked to proprietary code,
but it is not compatible with LGPLv2-only or GPLv2-only (unless it's
GPLv2 with the runtime or classpath exceptions).

This is (IMO) a really hokey situation, where LGPLv3 is compatible with
non-free SW
but not with free SW under GPLv2/LGPLv2.  The compatibility muddle is
irrelevant for purposes
of deciding whether LGPLv3 meets the OSD, but it certainly makes me want
to reach for the ibuprofen.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center

[Chris DiBona]

No clue.

On 7/31/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> wrote:

> "Chris DiBona" <cdibona@...> writes:
> > As an FYI, I submitted mine to license-approval@... as
> > well.
>
> Did yours bounce?  If not, what is the magic sauce?
>
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> Senior Software Developer
> Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Chris DiBona]

(and no, it didn't bounce)

On 7/31/07, Chris DiBona <cdibona@...> wrote:

> No clue.
>
> On 7/31/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> wrote:
> > "Chris DiBona" <cdibona@...> writes:
> > > As an FYI, I submitted mine to license-approval@... as
> > > well.
> >
> > Did yours bounce?  If not, what is the magic sauce?
> >
> > DES
> > --
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> > Senior Software Developer
> > Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
> > <