Re: Open Software License v2.1
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of
> debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
>
> Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
> They do not provide a diff between v2.0 and v2.1, unfortunately, so
> here it is. I omitted some minor reformatting differences; no textual
> changes have been omitted.
>
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -Open Software License v. 2.0
> +Open Software License v. 2.1
>
> 1) Grant of Copyright License.
> Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> @@ -119,10 +119,10 @@
> This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
> exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the
> date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
> - for patent infringement (i) against Licensor with respect to a patent
> - applicable to software or (ii) against any entity with respect to a
> - patent applicable to the Original Work (but excluding combinations
> - of the Original Work with other software or hardware).
> + against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
> + infringes a patent. This termination provision shall not apply for an
> + action alleging patent infringement by combinations of the Original
> + Work with other software or hardware.
I believe that this is an acceptable, free patent termination clause. :-)
But then you could have guessed that by reading my previous statements.
> I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to address
> the objection to that section in the original summary. Is there consensus
> on this?
Probably not *consensus*, this early, given how contentious all of this is!
> I further believe the objection to item #5 in the original summary
> is spurious. As admitted in the summary, the DFSG does not prohibit this.
That's not how the DFSG work.
This is a curious form of use restriction ("If you let anyone else at all
use your derivative work, you agree that you've distributed it"), and
there's quite an argument over whether it's an acceptable form.
I currently lean towards "no". If I write a temporary modified version for
private use, and then let my girlfriend run the program while I look over
her shoulder, poof, I've "distributed" it according to this license. But
not according to any normal interpretation. Basically, this section denies
any right to private modification, and I'm uncomfortable with its
broadness. But maybe others think that is free.
> The Dissident test is under question and does not appear to have broad
> support within Debian as an additional DFSG guideline, so the objection
> to item #9 is irrelevant.
That's not how the DFSG work.
Let me analyze section 9 again.
This is the part where he's trying to make the license into a contract, and
it's quite a mistake.
"If You distribute 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. "
What is "a reasonable effort under the circumstances"? Does this really
allow putting the Work on an anonymous FTP site and allowing anyone to just
download it? It doesn't appear to.
This needs to be resolved. Maybe it doesn't mean what it appears to?
The rest of section 9, apart from that one sentence, is the standard
GPL-style "You accept this license by exercising the rights granted under
it", and is of course just fine.
> I therefore believe the only remaining objection to the OSL v2.1 is
> item #6. It seems the objections could be resolved by clarifications
> to the wording rather than being against the philosophy of the item.
I believe that that is probably correct. :-) That's one which is just
misdrafted, rather than wrong-in-principle -- so common.
> If there is broad agreement upon this point, I'll contact Larry Rosen
> and ask him to clarify the wording in this section.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: