Slashdot Mirror
OSI Approves Three New Licenses
Russ Nelson writes: "In our monthly board meeting this past Wednesday, the Open Source Initiative approved three new licenses for use with OSI Certified Open Source Software: the W3C
license, the Motosoto license,
and the Open
Group Test Suite License. In other action, one license was voted down because it violated the discrimination clause of the Open Source
Definition. Another (the RTSP) was
withdrawn because the license-discuss mailing list convinced the
submittor that it wasn't ready. And one (the DSPL) goes back to
license-discuss because we disagree with their analysis and want to
re-negotiate it with them. Several people have suggested that we post the licenses that we have turned down, and explain just why they don't comply with the Open Source Definition. We don't want to discourage people from submitting licenses, knowing that their license might be held up for public notice. We'd rather encourage people with non-compliant licenses to fix them so they are compliant."
If anything will be the downfall of OSS, it is the multitude of licenses. It will cost companies too much in attorney's fees to be worth their trouble. How many licenses do we need?
try this: Motosoto Community
More open licences give more freedom, in the sense
that developers have a greater choice over which freedoms they want to give and which they wish to keep.
Not everyone agrees with RMS's philosophy, so we
need alternatives.
Although IMHO the GPL is the best licence out there.
Here is a working link to the Motosoto liscense: http://www.motosoto.org/ARCHIVES/0/1/mosl.html
Here is a link to the current list of OSI liscenses: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Open source means that you open up your intelectual property so that other can use it without fees and add their own contribution.
That's exactly what's happening here:
People take the sources of other peoples open source licences, modify them and redistribute them without having to pay any silly license fees.
So, you see the great sucess of open source here: many different licenses exist now and compete with each other and all time new licenses are created.
Some people might say now this is bad because there might be holes which evil guys can abuse, but because the license is open at once a new license is created without the hole and evil men have no chance !!!
So don't believe Microsoft with their evil anti-open source FUD: nobody uses the MS licenses beside MS themselves anymore, because they are closed and they will fail. Soon all licenses will be open source licenses because that's the only licenses people can fit to their needs wihtout paying big bucks !
And laywers can still make money just be providing advice for the licenses without needing to charge fees for the original licenses !!!
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Why not hold them up to public inspection, show why a license was turned down, and what the implications of the offending clauses were. If they archive the communications with the license authors, it may be usefull to show what the real intent of the authors was down the road in case of disputes. In a world where the shrink-wrapped you gotta agree to it before you even see it license reins supreme, I'd find this refreshing
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I for one, as the author of the DSPL, the license that is going back for further discussion, would love to hear what slashdot people think about it. I can't comment on the others, but it is rather a departure from the traditional open source license...
The FSF's definition of Free Software requires that "A free program must be available for commercial use".
A company that submits a license should not have to worry about getting flooded with flames since their license did not pass..
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
The clause used in that license is the same as the one used in the Artistic License. A "reasonable copying fee" could, in reality be an "outrageous copying fee" or more commonly the software can be bundled with something else for which you charge a "ludicrous proprietary fee".
/., the streets will run red with the blood of chickens. Why chickens? Because VA Chicken Processing just opened a new plant there and agreed to give everybody free chickens. They expect profitability by 2008.
So in this regard it's essentially the same as the Artistic License. I would criticize them for lifting material from the AL, possibly the most vague, unprofessional, IANAL license of all time.
ObSuicide: CmdrTaco is a big fat penis, I spit on
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yes everybody and his dog now wants his own pet licence ! this poses licence compatibility, and makes every project isolated in it's own galaxy, it withdraws a lot of the benefices of Open Source where many projects share their source too.
Soon we will have a kind an open source Babel tower where every project has it's own licence but communicate with others. Talk about an oxymoron
Before posting the licenses for public review, remove the company's name and any other identifiable information.
or the Monsanto/Microsoft License:
all your crops will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
"freeware" is a blanket term that usually refers to any program in binary form or source code that is given away. In other words the "free" in "freeware" means free-as-in-beer, or stuff you don't pay for. For that reason it is extremely general and nonspecific. Both "Open Source" and "Free Software" are much more specific than "freeware". These days, the word freeware has come mostly to refer to software that is available for free in executable binary format only and is closed source.
I for one, as the author of the DSPL, the license that is going back for further discussion, would love to hear what slashdot people think about it. I can't comment on the others, but it is rather a departure from the traditional open source license...
:)
:)
:) and I haven't spent hours poring over it of course so things I've seen as potential problems may be addressed better than I took in.
Well, the whole executive committee and merit share holders thing gave the impression of over complexity to me and I doubt it'll be used widely, but I think that scheme is the heart of the licence so I'm sure you want to keep it
One particular point was it seemed to revolve around having elections for every public release of the software, so far as I could see this would mean holding elections for every bug fix. I'm probably reading it too strictly but then there doesn't seem much point in a (quite substantial) written licence unless it's expected to be strictly adhered to.
Is the thing about not being allowed to charge for the software itself important? If I understand correctly you mean I couldn't say "I will charge you $100 for this software" but I could say "I will charge you $100 for making a copy of this software for you" or something like that. If I've got that right, what's achieved by this and would you really want to be in the position of policing it?
The GPL's approach of letting people charge what they want seems to have much the same practical effect given than market forces will bring down the price of freely redistributable software unless you can add some extra value.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to include your interpretation of patent laws:
"While it is not in general illegal to produce or distribute software such as this that uses patented methods, it may be illegal to use such software for any purposes other than 'private experimentation'."
You might be right, I don't know, but I can't see you need to say it in the software licence just include the part about it being their responsibility to comply with the law. I don't know from reading it whether you were thinking of a particular jurisdiction (the USA maybe?) or all countries signed up to particular treaties or what. Stating what the law is "in general" in a licence that presumably may be used internationally doesn't seem like a good idea to me. You may be inadvertently misleading some people.
I think the part about being able to make derivatives licensed under the GPL was good, given the state of the "market" it seems good to me to allow redistribution under one of the leading licences but then I like the GPL and I expect some will disagree
Something I did find odd was that after specifying that derivatives could be under DSPL or GPL it then talks about pre-release versions being under a licence that prohibits further distribution, but with no real limits on what that licence might otherwise say - should this only be valid for a limited period or something?
I'm not sure on the effectiveness of the final clause about using the software as a library. So far as I can see you can take software not released as a library, adapt it so it is now a library, release that library yourself under the DSPL and then link to it in exactly the way that (it seems to me) you're trying to prohibit.
Okay, that was just a series of thoughts probably not entirely coherent that occurred to me as I read throught it. I hope I haven't sounded too negative, I guess I was looking for problems
Good luck with your licence.
That looks like freedom to me. Uniformization is not always good. If you can't read the licenses of everything that you run while actually caring about them, then you shouldn't be running the software.
This big building with three large black neon letters in the topleft corner: 'O', 'S', 'I'. The 'S' is blinking, the other two are out. The camera zooms in and moves focus to one of the building windows. It's thick with dust, so we only get a vague view on the inside.
And inside, there's a table with 1 cm of dust on it. Around this table are some chairs. Just as many mummies are sitting upon these chairs with their heads on the table, spider rags going from their heads to the table and back again.
Then suddenly one of these heads rises. A low, low voice speaks.
"Guys, people haven't really heard from us lately. Let's approve some licenses, or something."
The other mummy heads also rise from the table. Mumbling. "Yeah, good idea."
;-)
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Try this, this (Slashdot story here) and this. HTH.
What should happen if OSI software supports plugins (note patented software is just a special case of this) and external scripting languages which themselves are not OSI? You cannot insist that they follow the same licensing. Take a look at GE Medical which embeds Tcl/TK within their medical instruments. I doubt whether they will kindly open up their IP.
Also if the software goes kaput (or bought out) for any reason, what should the contrib community code licensing do (considering the legal entity holding the original OSI does not exist). If I was a Gate-2.0 I would conceive of an ingeneous bait and switch tactic where the original stuff was OSI but then deliberately strangle the legal holder and change the terms of the now rootless software as individuals with forks won't have the resources to compete.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Recently I attended a forum on interoperability of EDA (electronic design automation) tools that was hosted by Synopsys (one of the big companies in that field) at which Bruce Perens gave the keynote speech. They seemed to be rather enthusiastic about open source, and have released certain data formats (and supporting code) under a so-called open source license. I've read this license and it seems to be pretty good, but I'm not an expert in licensing. I was hoping to see if OSI had anything to say about it, but the Synopsys license doesn't seem to be on their "approved" list. Is this because it hasn't been evaluated yet, or because it's been rejected? I tried looking at the archived mailing list, but there was no search function and I didn't feel like navigating through months of archives.
If anyone from OSI (esp Bruce) is reading this, I'd be ever so pleased if you could respond. Thanks.
How can I submit my license. It's a cross between the GPL and BSD license, although it's not compatible with either. It also suffers from fewer loopholes than the GPL. Here goes:
Any comments? Anyone see any potential loopholes?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I can remember when shareware programs were very prominent, which was especially during the time when dial-up computer bulletin boards were around.
I'm not sure if there was any "official" standard licence, but nearly every shareware author included a licence stating that you could charge for distribution costs of the program, but not for the program itself. Usually this was placed on a shareware version of the program, and anyone wanting the full version would send money to the author or (on the later days) a publishing company.
The thing is that even with this licence, there were still companies that made money - completely legitimately - through distributing shareware programs. Simtel and various others made CD's full of thousands of shareware programs, an application gold mine at the time, that people could buy in shops for $30. They were really popular for BBS system operators.
There was at least one other company near where I am that was packaging up shareware programs into sleek plastic satchels, and marketing them under their distribution brand in all the computer shops for about $10 each. It was completely legal because they were charging for the the time and effort they'd put into the packaging and distribution.
So in answer to your question about whether that clause in the OTSL prevents programs being available for commercial re-selling, the answer is no it doesn't. It's completely possible for commercial entities to re-sell it. Of course, companies could use it commercially anyway without trying to sell it, and the clause you've highlighted doesn't talk about that at all. I'm not sure how you think any inability to sell the code prevents it from being used commercially. Just because they're not allowed to sell someone's effort doesn't mean they can't use it for their business to make money.
not off-topic.
Yeah, originally I was going for funny. But, despite being about agriculture, this is definitely on-topic. It's a contrast to the "good" licenses discussed above, and how companies can use their patents to force compliance with these licenses even to people who don't want to. If you care about software licenses, you should be interested in biotechnology licenses (both are concerned with protecting IP). While the GPL and its ilk are accused of being viral, here's an example of a license that literally is. Farmers face a terrible plight -- inability to control what they plant and who they buy it from -- and I hope to god that it never comes to computers. How is this possible, you say? Well, I gave you start -- virii -- so start the discussion! Is there some patented technology that will become essential for interoperability (like GIFs, but moreso)? Will passport become necessary to conduct transactions over the web? In the slashdot tradition, go ahead and add your favorite ms conspiracy theory.
And before modding down a seemingly unrelated post down, remember that cross-fertilization (no pun intented!) from other disciplines is an amazing tool to understand something about the topic at hand.
p.s. not to harp on farming, but I thought that the Autonomic Computing article made good use of cross-disciplinary comparisons in its whitepaper.
end rant; it wasn't about karma.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets