Slashdot Mirror
OSI Approves Two New Licenses
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}