Re: GPL v3? Other license options?

[MJ Ray <..hidden..>]

"Joshua D. Drake" <..hidden..> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I get spooked by talk of odd licences like OSL
>
> Odd licenses like the "Open Source Software License" from the Open
> Source Initiative?

That's the Open Software License, not Open Source Software License.
It's Copyright 2005 Lawrence Rosen, not OSI.  Remember that a mo.

The OSI's approval process http://www.opensource.org/approval hinges
on the step "Create a legal analysis of the license as it complies
with the terms of the Open Source Definition. [...]" and the review by
OSI's license panel.  For the 2005 OSL, that review seems to have been
11 emails before approval, mostly debating subject lines:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11007:200509:ljmmmlealmddklbkagog#b
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:10933:200509:fhabfhkahidacabelfhh#b
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11000:200509:hdokompifaiibfhepobe#b

At the time of approving OSL 1.0 (Sept 2002), the key steps were "If we
find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition,
we will work with you to resolve the problems. [...] As part of this
process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license issues."
http://web.archive.org/web/20021004090302/opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval

That time, there was a 2-message thread on their license-discuss list.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:5523:200207:njiacpddmkggdhhhcamm#b

Also, at that time, the only listed legal service provider to OSI was
"Larry Rosen".  Remember him?
http://web.archive.org/web/20021004084009/www.opensource.org/docs/board.php

In short, I don't think the OSI-certification of OSL is worth much.

Some debian developers were unhappy that OSL 2.0 didn't seem to
explcitly allow binaries built from the source to be distributed, the
overbroad patent retaliation and the External Deployment use
restrictions.  The licence is bad enough that some OSL software was
removed from debian.  See Joey Hess's email summary for example:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00215.html

Some debian users were also unhappy about the acceptance clause and
way OSL can require retention of false attribution notices.

I'm not sure what's changed with later versions.

> Hmmm.. sounds like somebody has been sipping .... ;)

Yep, but it ain't me ;-)

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/