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."

Comments

Re:How is fractured licensing good for open source

[Carl]

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.

Re:External Deployment

[Ed Avis]

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. Consider the DFSG: 'no discrimination against fields of endeavour'. Doesn't that mean no special requirements for using the program in a web page as opposed to a command-line app?

Also this means that the licence becomes an EULA, because it purports to restrict use of the software and not just to grant permissions for copying. The GPL's enforceability is based on copyright, but copyright (in most countries) does not require you to get permission before merely running a computer program.

Look at the text: 'you agree that any external deployment shall be deemed a distribution'. But you can't 'agree' that unless the licence is considered some kind of contract. With the GPL, it is up to copyright law to decide what counts as distributing the software. Here the licence attempts to extend copyright to count all sorts of random things as infringement, but I don't see how a court would agree with that.

Personally I've long since given up taking notice of anything the Open Source Initiative certifies. Ever since they gave their stamp of approval to that Apple licence which allows 'revokation' at any point in the future when Apple's lawyers decide not to contest a patent infringement in court. The FSF may wrap its pronouncements in ideological justification which is offputting to some, but at least when they say that a program is free software you can be sure it is.

Public performance

[yerricde]

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."

Re:Pantent clause sounds interesting..

[Spy Hunter]

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.