Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSI Approves Two New Licenses

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the student-driver dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Open Source Initiative approved two new licenses. One, the Academic Free License is a MIT/BSD-like license . The other one, the Open Software License is an apparently GPL-incompatible "viral" license with some obnoxious clauses. Both have an interesting "mutual termination for patent action" clause - basically, the license terminates if you file a lawsuit in any court against any software that is licensed under an OSI approved license containing the same clause."

16 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. How is fractured licensing good for open source? by firewrought · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can someone explain how the OSI is doing something good for the community by endorsing incompatible license variations?

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  2. External Deployment by srw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The external deployment clause is interesting to me. As I read it, if you use a modified OSL app on your website, you need to make your changes public. As I read the GPL, you don't need to make your changes public unless you distribute the binary.

    1. Re:External Deployment by Niten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps the external deployment clause is one useful clause that was overlooked by the authors of the GPL - in effect, there is no practical difference between running a distributed binary on your system and submitting input and viewing output on your system for code that is executed on a separate server...

      What I find more interesting, though, is the Mutual Termination for Patent Application clause in the Open Software License. This, ideally, would prevent "IP Warriors" from using your software in their arsenal, but I think that practically this clause would serve said Patent Warriors with no incentive to act somewhat ethically, but instead can only serve to further fragment the world of Open Source licenses.

      This brings up a bigger point, one that has certainly been raised before: Are all these OSS licenses really necessary, or productive? In an ideal world, I think, we would all be able to use the BSD license without having to worry about greedy corporations and individuals "embracing and extending" our code; this is not an ideal world, however, and I firmly believe that we need the protection that licenses like the GPL and LPGL can afford us. That said, having two more-or-less functionally equivalent, yet completely incompatible, GPLs lying around does nobody any good. The goal of the GPL, and supposedly the OSI, is to foster cooperation between Open Source applications, while preventing closed-source companies and individuals from using our code. But by having two or more incompatible GPLs we can only prevent OSS projects from collaborating.

      I think that a massive consolidation of OSI-approved licenses is in order.

  3. nasty clause by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Both have an interesting "mutual termination for patent action" clause - basically, the license terminates if you file a lawsuit in any court against any software that is licensed under an OSI approved license containing the same clause.

    So now open-source licenses are trying to restrict our legal rights? I can't see any company adopting any software that uses these licenses if it does not allow them to exercises their legal rights to file lawsuits. It seems this clause is just a way to try and take away people's freedom.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:nasty clause by ShadowDrake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's a 'poison-pill' clause, intended to discourage a certain behaviour.

      Software patents make it theoretically possible to have software that's libre free (in terms of the copyrighted material) but still restricted (in terms of patents). Big example: GIF, MP3, and now JPEG patents.

      A clause like this makes it expensive for a patent-holder to try to enforce software patents against Free Software. They might get a few thousand bucks in settlements, assuming their claims aren't thrown out, but at the cost of losing the right to redistribute software they may need for their business, or even products that make up part of their product line.

      I like it, in a way. The Free Software movement can't really offer cross-licencing agreements, or even really buy patent licences, but now they have something they can use for leverage.

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
  4. Re:How is fractured licensing good for open source by Carl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree. Why didn't he just work with the FSF on the GPL version 3?

    The "Open Software License" (interesting name for a license) seems to be a copyleft license incompatible with the GPL. Sigh... Is it really smart for an OSI board member to add new incomptatible copyleft licenses to the mix and also ask for OSI certification. Hmmm...

    There are some interesting things in there such as the patent thing, but is it really smart to mix up copyrights and patents in the same legal document?

    The license seems a bit US centric which might put off non-americans.

  5. Not zesty by slifox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know about other peoples' views, but I don't think that restricting people's freedom of action (ie, saying you can't sue for patents, software with this license, or all your software will be illegal) is what OSI is all about. Licenses like this lead to things like Microsoft EULAs -- it's only a matter of time.

  6. The best copyleft by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mine, the qingPL. (the qing is not gnu Public License).

  7. Re:Not MIT/BSD-like by XaXXon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The AFL, unlike MIT and BSD, does not require that the copyright
    be maintained in derivative works, but only in distributions of
    the Original Work.

    Seems like the taking out of the copyright notice is in itself making a derivative work, which means you can distribute something exactly like the original minus the copyright notice. Hrmm..

    Anyone?

  8. Pantent clause sounds interesting.. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This patent clause sounds really interesting...
    Let's see if I have this right:
    If I write some software package think "infringes" on a patent, and the patent owner sues me, the patent owner is never granted any rights by any of these liscenses. This sounds like a really innovative way to combat all the patent b.s. that's been going on. If enough important things were to adopt this liscense, it might just make the economic cost for filing such a patent higher than the benfit.
    Example:
    1. Linux adopts one of these new liscenses.
    2. Software package XYZ adopts one of these liscenses and violates IBM's patent on determine bra cup size via direct measurement (US Patent 5,965,809).
    3. If IBM sues XYZ, they can never use linux.
    Seems to have some interesting implications...
    Is my interpretion correct?
    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
    1. Re:Pantent clause sounds interesting.. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Before you think about adding this clause to the GPL, remember that this only works if the user is required to accept the license before *using* the software. This is an important subtlety of the GPL: You are not required to accept the GPL to *use* the software, only to *distribute* it. So a clause like this wouldn't have as big an effect if it was added to the GPL since it would only prevent a suing company from distributing any GPL'd software. The GPL is like this because it is not like one of those shrink-wrap licenses which limit your rights before you can use the product. The GPL only gives you rights that you would otherwise not have by default under copyright law, namely the right to distribution, if you agree to its conditions. IMHO that makes the GPL stronger in principle than ordinary shrink-wrap licenses, and probably stronger than this license too. However, IANAL.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  9. OSL by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't Lawrence Rosen the lawyerdude who wrote in Linux Journal?

    Heh, the license itself has a license:

    This license is Copyright (C) 2002 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this license without modification. This license may not be modified without the express written permission of its copyright owner.

    At first glance, this license doesn't seem bad, and doesn't seem terribly different than the GPL in spirit. It does have a more "lawyerly" tone to it (for instance the section defining "You" in the license).

    One glaring difference is the "External Deployment" clause, which is much clearer than the GPL on the subject. But personally, I'm not sure if I would want to limit the "use" of software in this way. I strongly believe that licenses should not even pretend to restrict your use of the software in any way. On the other hand, it closes off a way for people to circumvent the GPL by modifying the software and then deploying it as a service "at arm's length".

    Another difference is the patent clause: "This license will self destruct in the presence of patent litigation." I actually think this is clever. I'd like to see more analysis of this clause.

    But all in all, I don't see this license as being particularly obnoxious. What did I miss?

  10. Public performance by yerricde · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't that mean no special requirements for using the program in a web page as opposed to a command-line app?

    A license to copy and modify a program does not automatically confer the right to perform the program publicly.

    But that 'external deployment' stuff restricts how you may *use* the software, not just how you may distribute copies. It seems like enough to make the program non-free.

    Not how you use it, but how you modify it. Modification, or preparation of derivative works, is normally the exclusive right of the copyright holder. So is public performance. GPL2 claimed "if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source code". GPL3 claims additionally: "if you modify the software and publicly perform it, you must distribute source code."

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  11. OSL Much more Aggressive than GPL by dh003i · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This new Open Source License is very aggressive, much more so than the GPL; but whereas the GPL is aggressive in terms of preserving users' freedom, the OSL is aggressive in terms of protecting OSI-certified software.

    Basically, what they're doing is trying to prevent people from suing OSI-certified with this clause from patent-infringement lawsuits.

    If a company uses OSL-licensed software, and they file a lawsuite against any OSI-certified license with that clause in it, then they automatically lose their license to use the OSL-licensed software. Rather clever. Basically, it creates an incentive for a company not to file a lawsuite against an OSI-certified license with that clause in it, if the software OSL'ed software they're using is important to them.

    I propose one modification to this license, one which would allow it to protect any OSI-certified or OSS / FS license from patent-lawsuites; adjust the clause to say "if you file a patent lawsuite against software licensed under any OSI-certified, OSS, or FS (i.e., LGPL/GPL) license.

    This is certainly not a Free Software license, and I'm sure that RMS will denounce it soon, even though it protect many OSS / FS projects from patent lawsuites.

    Consider the implications of this. Lets say that by some act of God (or Satan), Stallman releases a new version of GCC under a modified GPL license with such a patent-lawsuite termination clause in it. Now lets say taht MS uses that new version of GCC as the core for its GUI-based compiler, which is "at a arms length" from the GCC program (i.e., calls it externally), and releases a product called MS GCC, for which they charge you for the MS GUI. Now lets say this was a major profit-maker for MS. And lets say they decide to sue an OSI / OSS / FS license for violating MS' patents. If they do that, they automatically lose the right to use that new GCC, so they can't sell their graphically MS GCC. In other words, it would create a pretty big motivation for them not to sue any OSI / OSS / FS software for patent-infringement.

    I like that, because it offers some protection for us OSI / OSS / FS developers from patent-infringement law-suites. We can't afford to defend such things, and we certainly can't afford to be help them sue us with our own software (imagine a company suing us using OpenOffice to write up the legal documents; that'd be like when the English massacred the Chinese using Chinese-made Chinese-invented gunpowder).

    On the other hand, this is exactly the same kind of thing which is outrageous about EULA's. MS could put the same kind of thing in any of their EULA's; i.e., if you sue MS, you're license to use MS Office terminates. Good luck suing them if you were only relying on their word processors to type up the legal documents!

    However, that said, the same thing which is outrageous in a EULA is not so outrageous in an OSS / FS license, because we need to use whatever means we have to protect ourselves.

    In short, we need to think about this kind of thing very carefully. By no means can you say that this type of clause is concerned with the user's freedom. Its concerned with protecting the developer from a lawsuite. So its a clear values choice: Ensuring Freedom (as the GPL does) versus protecting yourself and other OSI / OSS / FS developers. I'm not suggesting which one is best, but you should at least know that choosing this type of license over a freedom-ensuring license (like the GPL) necessarily reduces the amount of freedom.

    In that regard, if the idea is to protect the developer (and OSI / OSS / FS developers in general) from a lawsuite, why not just say "by accepting this license, you agree not to file lawsuites against any OSI / OSS / FS software developer?

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  12. Re:Viral licences remain untested in court by btempleton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My point is, as you can see from another reply somebody wrote, many people believe that the way the GPL and other licences are written, they can command people who use modified GPLd code in a modified program they distribute to place their modifications under the GPL and to publish the source.

    This is untested and probably not true. They can get a court to command you to stop distributing the software with the GPLd code. They can get a court to command you to pay damages for the copies you did distribute. They might get a court to declare criminal infringement but I really doubt it due to the monetary requirement there.

    As for damages, you had better have a registered coypright, because that lets you have statutory damages. If you don't have that you get actual damages which are monetary and they are probably zero since the author didn't lose any money.

    But the point I am making is, in spite of the claims that some make, I don't think you can command them to release the source to their program. You might be able to do this in practice by saying, "If you release your changes under the GPL, I will drop my infringement lawsuit" but that has a subtle difference in how it works.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  13. But this license is much more viral than the GPL by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The GPL "infects" only code linked into the same executable program. This one infects any derivative work, and has no "mere aggregation" clause like the GPL does. It may not be OK to put any other software on the same CD-ROM as code licensed under the OSL, as the CD-ROM as a whole could be considered a derivative work. An OSL program will need to be kept rigidly isolated from other software to a far greater extent than a GPL program.