www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Third-party licensing policy: OSL 3.0
Date Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:51:26 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> I'm sure this will irk Larry, but one source of commentary on both OSL
> and AFL is the GPL compatibility page:
> 
> "Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which
> requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
> This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites,
> sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in
> an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the
> license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.

What irks me is that this is more hogwash from FSF. "Reasonable efforts" to
obtain express assent can be entirely compatible with FTP distribution or
the other techniques they mention. OSL 3.0 does not require specific assent
mechanisms.

> The FSF assessment seems pretty fair; there's no way we'll be making
> any effort to get assent beyond putting the license in the LICENSE
> file.

If what you do now is "reasonable under the circumstances," what makes you
think that OSL/AFL 3.0 would require more than that?

In other respects, I think you have accurately characterized the two
licenses.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
> Yandell
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:42 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Third-party licensing policy: OSL 3.0
> 
> On 10/19/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > > Also, it seems that the requirement "Licensor agrees to provide a
> > > machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along
> > > with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes." is
> > > explicitly opposed to the binary-only requirement for category B
> > > libraries.
> >
> > Note that it is the LICENSOR who provided the software to Apache who
> must
> > provide the source code, not the LICENSEE. Distributing a binary copy
> > doesn't breach that condition, as long as the LICENSOR makes his source
> code
> > available or links to it on the web.
> 
> I'm sure this will irk Larry, but one source of commentary on both OSL
> and AFL is the GPL compatibility page:
> 
> "Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which
> requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
> This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites,
> sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in
> an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the
> license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.
> "
> 
> Presumably this refers to the "9) Acceptance and Termination." section:
> 
> "If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a
> Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the
> circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms
> of this License."
> 
> The FSF assessment seems pretty fair; there's no way we'll be making
> any effort to get assent beyond putting the license in the LICENSE
> file.
> 
> =-=-=
> 
> The difference between the two is that the AFL says:
> 
> "under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms
> and conditions, including Licensor's reserved rights and remedies, in
> this Academic Free License;"
> 
> and the OSL says:
> 
> "with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works
> that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Open
> Software License;"
> 
> [and now to look like a fool by stating an IANAL interpretation]
> 
> It's not the same as LGPL in that its only stating conditions that
> relate to the OSL'd piece of software. If you change it, you have to
> keep it under the OSL. The 'Derivative Works' bit seems pretty clear
> and doesn't imply linking or combining.
> 
> So, AFL means that if we change the source we can have our changes be
> AL 2.0 and the Derivative Work be a combo of AFL and AL 2.0; while OSL
> means our changes have to be OSL.
> 
> If not for the assent bit, my gut would say class A for AFL and class
> B for OSL; with the pondering that all of class B should have a "We
> don't change their source" rule. We definitely wouldn't be changing
> the OSL source as there are some strong 'everything must be AL 2.0'
> opinions. With the assent bit, I don't see how either can be anything
> other than class X (non-distributable).
> 
> *neck stuck out... counting to 10... waiting for the guillotine* :)
> 
> Hen
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message