Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft has already released some code under the GPL - remember those Linux drivers for Hyper-V?

There's also an MS license, Ms-RL, which is strong copyleft. I can't recall any products released under it so far (IronPython and IronRuby, which I know of, used to be under Ms-PL, which is BSD-like; now they are under Apache license), but I'm sure there are some.

That is not the definition that the OSI uses to define Open Source, nor is it the FSF's definition of Free Software. It may be how you personally define 'open source', but you should be aware that you are not using the established definitions. Sources:

Open source definition from the OSI.

Free Software definition from the FSF.

You are free to define 'open source' however you want, but if you define it differently from everyone else then you might end up with some difficulties communicating.

If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.

It is one of many kinds of open source.

Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".

The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.

The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.

I count 2 words. In any case 'Open Source' software is pretty much synonymous with 'Free Software', which is why it does seem to make sense to have both terms. Whereas 'open source' software is much more generally any software to which you are given access to the source code.

The Briefs code is now up on GitHub, and yes, you can go look at it, however it's not "Open Source" (per OSI), it's not "Free Software" (per the FSF), and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

If you look at the commit history for the license, he even explicitly changed the license two days ago to make it less free:

2010-08-28
Modified license terms to disallow someone from reselling Briefs without making major modifications. Also protect the Briefs trademark. Still, free source code, huh? Not too shabby.

Prior to two days ago, the code was under the... well, I'm not exactly sure what license!

Here's the license (the first paragraph is a dead ringer for the opening of the MIT License):

Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Rob Rhyne
Briefs is a trademark of Digital Arch Design Corp.
http://robrhyne.com/
http://digitalarch.net/
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction except as noted below, including without limitation
the rights to use,copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
and/or sublicense, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Here's the non-FOSS part:

The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
sold without meaningful modification for a profit.

This is more of the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This middle part looks like the BSD license:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.

Actually, there are only two clauses there, so that's essentially the 2-clause BSD, not the 3-clause one (just a minor point, really).

Then we get the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause. Lawyers seem to love these things, but they seem so uncouth to me. Anyhow, for 5 points, from which license was this paragraph chosen?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's right! It's the indemnification clause from the MIT license.

I googled around trying to figure out if other people used this same license, but the best I came up with was the NCSA license. It's unlikely that this license is based off that one, as the phrase to deal in the Software (MIT) is used in this new license instead of to deal with the Software (NCSA).

One more thing: let's point out exactly why the license doesn't pass any of the most popular FOSS metrics:

1) "Open Source" (per OSI)

Per

The Briefs code is now up on GitHub, and yes, you can go look at it, however it's not "Open Source" (per OSI), it's not "Free Software" (per the FSF), and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

If you look at the commit history for the license, he even explicitly changed the license two days ago to make it less free:

2010-08-28
Modified license terms to disallow someone from reselling Briefs without making major modifications. Also protect the Briefs trademark. Still, free source code, huh? Not too shabby.

Prior to two days ago, the code was under the... well, I'm not exactly sure what license!

Here's the license (the first paragraph is a dead ringer for the opening of the MIT License):

Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Rob Rhyne
Briefs is a trademark of Digital Arch Design Corp.
http://robrhyne.com/
http://digitalarch.net/
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction except as noted below, including without limitation
the rights to use,copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
and/or sublicense, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Here's the non-FOSS part:

The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
sold without meaningful modification for a profit.

This is more of the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This middle part looks like the BSD license:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.

Actually, there are only two clauses there, so that's essentially the 2-clause BSD, not the 3-clause one (just a minor point, really).

Then we get the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause. Lawyers seem to love these things, but they seem so uncouth to me. Anyhow, for 5 points, from which license was this paragraph chosen?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's right! It's the indemnification clause from the MIT license.

I googled around trying to figure out if other people used this same license, but the best I came up with was the NCSA license. It's unlikely that this license is based off that one, as the phrase to deal in the Software (MIT) is used in this new license instead of to deal with the Software (NCSA).

One more thing: let's point out exactly why the license doesn't pass any of the most popular FOSS metrics:

1) "Open Source" (per OSI)

Per

The Briefs code is now up on GitHub, and yes, you can go look at it, however it's not "Open Source" (per OSI), it's not "Free Software" (per the FSF), and it's not "DFSG-free" (per Debian).

If you look at the commit history for the license, he even explicitly changed the license two days ago to make it less free:

2010-08-28
Modified license terms to disallow someone from reselling Briefs without making major modifications. Also protect the Briefs trademark. Still, free source code, huh? Not too shabby.

Prior to two days ago, the code was under the... well, I'm not exactly sure what license!

Here's the license (the first paragraph is a dead ringer for the opening of the MIT License):

Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Rob Rhyne
Briefs is a trademark of Digital Arch Design Corp.
http://robrhyne.com/
http://digitalarch.net/
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction except as noted below, including without limitation
the rights to use,copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
and/or sublicense, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Here's the non-FOSS part:

The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and
sold without meaningful modification for a profit.

This is more of the MIT license:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This middle part looks like the BSD license:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with
the distribution.

Actually, there are only two clauses there, so that's essentially the 2-clause BSD, not the 3-clause one (just a minor point, really).

Then we get the YELLING-AT-YOU indemnification clause. Lawyers seem to love these things, but they seem so uncouth to me. Anyhow, for 5 points, from which license was this paragraph chosen?

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's right! It's the indemnification clause from the MIT license.

I googled around trying to figure out if other people used this same license, but the best I came up with was the NCSA license. It's unlikely that this license is based off that one, as the phrase to deal in the Software (MIT) is used in this new license instead of to deal with the Software (NCSA).

One more thing: let's point out exactly why the license doesn't pass any of the most popular FOSS metrics:

1) "Open Source" (per OSI)

Per

>Open source is open source, meaning you can see the code. What's so hard about that?

The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.

How can I put this ? If it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't walk like a duck - then the fact that it's waterbird isn't enough to make it a duck.

You're looking for the Sleepycat license used by Oracle's Berkeley DB. It's a new-style BSD license with one additional clause that implements a copyleft.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I read the entire review, simply looking for an explanation of PrestaShop.

Apparently it's a PHP/MySQL app for running a web-based retail store. The core is released under the OSL 3.0 license, but it seems that many add-on modules and themes are available for purchase.

This review makes no mention if you have to purchase anything to build a storefront using PrestaShop, or if the standard OSS version will suffice. Nor does this review give any technical details on setting the thing up, including any dependencies on existing relationships with payment processors / merchant accounts. Perhaps the author could have talked about the example store he setup, and used his praise of the book to illustrate his example.

You are an idiot.

Most of OpenSolaris was under the CDDL, which provides protection from patent claims from Sun (now Oracle). So if you used OpenSolaris, they wouldn't have a case through copyright infringement -- it's an approved open-source license -- or through patents they hold. Reality is complicated, so it's always a good idea to read the license code is released under: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

In other words: your concern about OpenSolaris specifically is unfounded. DalvikVM wasn't make by Sun and released under the CDDL, so there was no patent protection. This will still have a chilling effect on the Java ecosystem, of course.

In practice I would use Solaris for databases and storing other critical data. Linux has a long way to go before it has something as mature as ZFS, and I wouldn't trust important data on anything less. DTrace adds introspection that is wonderful on a live database as well. Operating systems are tools, so use them for what they're good at.

``Open Source" just says that some people can read the source code. It doesn't tell us:

    1. Who can read the source (licensees only?)
    2. What you're allowed to do with the source''

To a degree, it does tell us that. By The Open Source Definition, we know that, at a minimum, source code can be distributed to anyone (free distribution, source code, and no discrimination against persons or groups), and that using the source code for creating derived works and distributing them under the same terms is allowed (derived works).

You are correct that, without knowing the specific license being granted, there are still some questions to be answered with respect to the points that you mentioned. For example, while, in principle, anyone is allowed to read the source code, source code is only required to be made available to those who receive the software as far as the open source definition is concerned, so source code may or may not be available to people who don't have the software. Also, without knowing the specific license, you cannot know whether or not you can use the source code in, say, a work that includes code under the GNU GPL. Depending on how you want to use the software, these points may be very important.

http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

No, Open Source actually means something more than source code that you can download and look through. I did look through the SDK source for a license, and the only thing I found was "Copyright (year) Valve Corporation, LLC, All Rights Reserved". I cannot find the terms and conditions of the source code for Alien Swarm anywhere in the SDK distribution.

Bruce Perens once related a story about Steve Ballmer announcing Microsoft's "Shared Source" program. During the Q&A portion of Ballmer's presentation, an audience member asked if Microsoft was going "Open Source". Ballmer's reply was something along the lines of, "Open Source means more than just releasing the source code". In other words, Ballmer had read Peren's Open Source Definition and understood that Open Source was more than just a couple of buzz words to be thrown around for marketing purposes.

There is a very specific definition for Open Source software. The term applies to many licenses. However, that term just does not extend to every bit of source code given away by a person or a company.

No, Open Source actually means something more than source code that you can download and look through. I did look through the SDK source for a license, and the only thing I found was "Copyright (year) Valve Corporation, LLC, All Rights Reserved". I cannot find the terms and conditions of the source code for Alien Swarm anywhere in the SDK distribution.

Bruce Perens once related a story about Steve Ballmer announcing Microsoft's "Shared Source" program. During the Q&A portion of Ballmer's presentation, an audience member asked if Microsoft was going "Open Source". Ballmer's reply was something along the lines of, "Open Source means more than just releasing the source code". In other words, Ballmer had read Peren's Open Source Definition and understood that Open Source was more than just a couple of buzz words to be thrown around for marketing purposes.

There is a very specific definition for Open Source software. The term applies to many licenses. However, that term just does not extend to every bit of source code given away by a person or a company.

It is true that OSI does NOT hold the trademark which would make them the de jure open source standard. But the simple fact that they applied for the trademark shows greater investment and clout that other who simply seek to redefine the term to suit their own immediate needs. This gives OSI an even greater claim to the de facto status.

Additional basis for this claim is that vast majority of projects and software that claim to be 'open source' subscribe to these policies or licenses recognized by OSI as 'open source'. Other non-software users of the term may reference the term but there is some fluidity to it which is why OSI does not *own* it de jure.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
See freedoms 2 and 3 = e.g. it cannot be free software.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
See article 1 of the open source definition. Therefore it cannot be open-source either.

Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?

I never made any claim about "free software", (evidenced by my use of the term "open source license") and would have been quite open in agreement that a "free license" would guarantee a right to indiscriminate redistribution.

However, section 1 requires indiscriminate redistribution only for aggregate works. Thus, it is not indiscriminate redistribution itself (as it has a limiting factor).

I've been eating nice tasty chunks of words that I didn't ever say or imply, however I most certainly wouldn't enjoy them more with ketchup... I've prepared them too well to desecrate them with the accursed ketchup.

The Open Source Definition

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

In a twisted sort of way, you could misconstrue the license to maybe not be infringing on this requirement. But basically, that quote from the Evaluation License says "this is 'open source', but only as far as that means you giving us free bug fixes."

No free software is something else altogether. Open source software does not just mean the source is "open", open source software is licensed under an OSI approved open source license and there are requirements.

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

If it doesn't meet those requirements it isn't open source and the source while it may be available ISN'T actually open.

"Open Source" as a term was coined explicitly to serve as a better brand name for Free Software. It was intended to be a more business friendly, pragmatic version of Free Software.

The Open Source Definition found on the OSI site was how the term was introduced to the world. Even if you believe that the term was being used before that and with some different definition (which I haven't seen any evidence of, but it's possible), this is the source of the term as it's currently used.

What's really going on here is that proprietary companies hoping to cash in on the Open Source brand are attempting to broaden the popular definition to include things that aren't really open source.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#History
• http://opensource.org/history
• http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
• http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/02/09/213900

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
See freedoms 2 and 3 = e.g. it cannot be free software.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
See article 1 of the open source definition. Therefore it cannot be open-source either.

Conclusion: do you think your words would be tastier if you add some ketchup before you eat them ?

This isn't wikipedia, do you own research. You can start by not being lazy and looking at the main OSI site.

Stallman says "free" software is about freedom. Freedom to change, tinker with it.

"Licensee shall not bifurcate the source code for any SugarCRM open source licensed products into a separately maintained source code repository so that development done on the original code requires manual work to be transferred to the forked software or so that the forked software starts to have features not present in the original software."

They may call it open source, but it's not free (as in speech) software.

Oh wait. According to the definition, it is not open source either. Sugar people: Stop calling the product something that it isn't.

Wrong. "Open Source" is defined by the OSI and besides letting you view the source, it must let you distribute it for free.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

While that's what the purely semantic meaning of the phrase would imply, it's not what the OSI means by "Open Source". Their definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd is far more narrow. So is the FSF's definition of "Free Software" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and these are the definitions most people use...

The SugarCRM definition of `Open Source' is different than the OSI definition
-------

The Open Source Definition (Annotated)

Version 1.9

The indented, italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source Definition (OSD) and are not a part of the OSD. A plain version of the OSD without annotations can be found here.

Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Requirement #1 is "Free Redistribution", i.e. that you have the freedom to, without limitation, redistribute the software.

Would you like ketchup with that ?

Only in an aggregate work. Not as an individual work... which I believe the original objection was about.

OK so I package it with a picture of your mum sucking my dick

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Requirement #1 is "Free Redistribution", i.e. that you have the freedom to, without limitation, redistribute the software.

Would you like ketchup with that ?

Only in an aggregate work. Not as an individual work... which I believe the original objection was about.

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Requirement #1 is "Free Redistribution", i.e. that you have the freedom to, without limitation, redistribute the software.

Would you like ketchup with that ?

Someone else already pointed to http://opensource.org/docs/osd but he pointed to requirement 1. It's actually 3.

Have you tried actually reading the first criteria of the open source definition?

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

Open source. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

The Simon Phipps article linked is *precisely* being upset Google didn't bother to call them. As is the Michael Tiemann one.

See http://github.com/RHoK/

I don't know what the other teams did, but the team I was on intended to release under this license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nasa1.3.php

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.

Since it violates one of the key elements of the definition of Open Source this is not an Open Source license, and clearly _not_ a Free/Libre Open Source Software license.

I think it may even violate Wheaton's First Rule, the one about being a dick, but I can't prove that empirically.

As a restriction on use, this breaks freedom zero and No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

But, er, no one is seriously planning to use this, right?

HPL is not a free software license. But one way to use it is as part of a multi-license to force downstream users to choose between not harming animals and not harming other developers. Dual-license your software under HPL (a pro-animal rights license based on BSD) and the Sleepycat License (a copyleft license based on BSD), and the developers of products intended for causing bodily harm will have to free their changes to your code.

WebM is available under a new license. So far haven't been able to find out whether Google will try to get this license OSI-approved.

Microsoft, of all places may have stumbled upon magic open source patent protection:

(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Any comments on what might happen if we change the wording from patents and claims affecting said software to all software patents held by the contributor? Get IBM to contribute one line of code in your project, and happily ever after, or would it lead to Global Thermopatent War?

it's an open standard with open source encoders

I don't know what definition of "open source" you are using or what you think it means in your mind, but that's not a generally accepted definition.

I'm not going to cite hardline FSF views. Instead have a look at generally considered "pragmatic" OSI:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

So, yes - open source does mean you need to be able to freely redistribute the source, otherwise what's the point?

If you go down that road, you'd be able to convince yourself that MS Windows is "open source" too since MS has given the Windows source code to some governments and biggest customers. They just can't redistribute it or make it public.

Actually, d4x was released under the Artistic License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
From a brief read of it, I don't see much difference from the GPL.
You're certainly allowed to modify it. Section 2 and 3 say:

"2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version.

3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

        a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as ftp.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package."

There is also an Artistic License 2.0, but the original homepage for d4x is down, so I can't tell whether or not it was released or relicensed under AL 2.0.
If it was, it's allowed to change the license to a compatible one such as GPL, MPL, or Apache.

It's also included in all debian releases since at least 4.0 (Etch): http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=d4x&searchon=names&suite=all&section=all. I don't think it would be, if it wasn't GPL-compatible.

Maybe you got hold of a version of d4x, that was relicensed inappropriately?

My dictionary says: open-source - adjective - Computing denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available.

Actually there are two meanings for that term because the word "free" has two meanings in English (libre vs. gratis).

Oh right, I forgot the meaning of "free software" overloaded, so "open source software" was declared to mean explicitly "free of cost & open" http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

THAT really clarifies things! /sarcasm

The weirdest part is how OSI set out to be more business friendly than free (only open) software.

One problem: The family of licenses you link to are not FOSS licenses, as they do not guarantee all of the freedoms in the Open Source Definition. In particular:

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.

If you want to restrict commercial use you'll have to do more than just avoid GPL and BSD. No FOSS license, however worded or structured, can specify separate terms for commercial use.

This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one, or this one, or this one, or even this one.

Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.

This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one, or this one, or this one, or even this one.

Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.

This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one, or this one, or this one, or even this one.

Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.

This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one, or this one, or this one, or even this one.

Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.

Although I have been following the Free and Open Source movements for many years, I didn't know who Larry Rosen is. Now that I've looked him up, I assume you're referring to The Open Software License and The Academic Free License. Since the latter isn't copyleft, it seems to only make sense to compare it to the BSD and MIT licenses, not any from the FSF.

It seems that Rosen claims that the OSL is less ambiguous than the GPL, but the FSF claims that the distribution requirements of the OSL are more ambiguous. Since IANAL, it's not clear to me if either claim is true. Even if the FSF's warning about the Rosen's licenses interfering with version control and distribution are bogus, it seems like a big disadvantage that they aren't GPL compatible as there are far more projects released under GPL, LPGL, and non-FSF licenses that are GPL compatible.

Although I have been following the Free and Open Source movements for many years, I didn't know who Larry Rosen is. Now that I've looked him up, I assume you're referring to The Open Software License and The Academic Free License. Since the latter isn't copyleft, it seems to only make sense to compare it to the BSD and MIT licenses, not any from the FSF.

It seems that Rosen claims that the OSL is less ambiguous than the GPL, but the FSF claims that the distribution requirements of the OSL are more ambiguous. Since IANAL, it's not clear to me if either claim is true. Even if the FSF's warning about the Rosen's licenses interfering with version control and distribution are bogus, it seems like a big disadvantage that they aren't GPL compatible as there are far more projects released under GPL, LPGL, and non-FSF licenses that are GPL compatible.