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."

3 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?
  3. 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?" `":" #");}