To License-Discuss (and to other potentially interested persons in bcc): I have revised the Open Software License to resolve concerns raised by several people, and today submit the new version to license-discuss for OSI approval. The new OSL license, version 2.0, can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html.
A redline comparison of the new version with the previous version can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/osl2.0-redline.pdf. The major changes are these: 1. The Grant of Copyright License and Grant of Patent License (sections 1 and 2) have been made sublicenseable. This simplifies the process of creating Derivative Works and makes it possible for a user to obtain the necessary licenses from one source, the Licensor, rather than have to seek out licenses from each contributor. This also affected the wording of section 7. 2. The Grant of Patent License (section 2) language has been simplified. 2. The Exclusions from License Grant (section 4) includes a sentence that prohibits the use of Licensor's or contributors' names to endorse or promote derivative works. This sentence was in the Academic Free License but was accidentally left off the earlier version of the OSL. 3. The Warranty (section 7) now includes a more-clearly stated "warranty of provenance" that can assure licensees that they are not receiving stolen intellectual property. Open source projects that use the OSL should make sure they are following rigorous procedures when they accept contributions -- as most such projects already do. Those contributions do not need to be received under an assignment of copyright; a license compatible in scope with the OSL grant (including any academic-style license) should be more than enough. 4. The Termination for Patent Action (section 10) provision no longer uses the "Mutual Defense" language. It has been replaced by new language that is patterned after the defensive termination provisions of the Common Public License and the IBM Public License (and also found in several other corporate licenses). This language will protect the open source community and our customers from patent infringement lawsuits without implying -- as some had feared about the previous language -- that it is OK for the open source community to ignore third party patent rights. Your comments and suggestions are encouraged. This is still a draft, so comments will be helpful. Many of you will already recognize the effects of your earlier suggestions. Thanks! /Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm General counsel, Open Source Initiative General counsel, JBoss Group LLC 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
