Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
While folks stated they felt consideration of the W3C license was probably accidently dropped; I've yet to hear a commitment not to drop it this time around. We (or at least I) still haven't heard if the W3C license is being considered? -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analystmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
It seems that I never received this message and wasn't able to follow up on it. [[[ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:58:22 -0700 Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Listed below are all the licenses approved by OSI and all the licenses I'm aware of that have been submitted to OSI for its approval. Please let me know if there are any changes, additions or deletions to these lists. The W3C software license was submitted by W3C some time ago, but no response was received. Please add it to the list with the following specifications: Name: W3C IPR Software Notice URL: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720 Contact: Philippe Le Hegaret [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philippe, if you are not the right person, please send Lawrence the email of the right person.) IMHO the W3C license is obviously open source (new BSD style), and should be blessed ASAP. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein ]]] -- Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00 http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss%40opensource.org/msg02310.html Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:39:57 GMT I'm not the right person on that even if this subject come from time to time on the DOM public mailing lists. The W3C Contact should be Joseph Reagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cc in this message). He submitted a request in January 2001 but never got a response [1]. This subject strikes back again today regarding the development of the DOM Test Suites in a public domain and might prevent us to use SourceForge: [[[ Philippe Le Hegaret writes: I don't think the W3C license is important when we talk about the bug tracking system. As long as the service is publicly accessible, reliable and don;t constraint use too much, I don't see any reason to not use it. It's up to those who are going to use it a lot to pick one. Perhaps not from the W3C's perspective, but for SourceForge, the *project* must have an OSD license to use the SF facilities -- even if the facility isn't CVS. It is unfortunate that the W3C license is not OSI approved, but that's not a battle I want to take on. ]]] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] from June 2001: Re: SV: Minutes in brief and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001Jun/0007.html Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:41:31 GMT I'm wondering if the W3C software license was lost somewhere or rejected for some unknown reasons. It is our intention to fix the W3C software license if it doesn't match the requested criteria but we cannot move if we are not aware of the rejection's reasons. Regards, Philippe [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/0017.html -- Philippe Le Hegaret - http://www.w3.org/People/LeHegaret/ World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), DOM Activity Lead
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
Philippe Le Hegaret scripsit: I'm wondering if the W3C software license was lost somewhere or rejected for some unknown reasons. It is our intention to fix the W3C software license if it doesn't match the requested criteria but we cannot move if we are not aware of the rejection's reasons. Speaking only for myself, I think it unlikely that it was rejected. The OSI board is a group of overworked volunteers (sound familiar?) and things do get dropped on the floor from time to time. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote: Speaking only for myself, I think it unlikely that it was rejected. The OSI board is a group of overworked volunteers (sound familiar?) and things do get dropped on the floor from time to time. They are a group of overworked volunteers who claim to represent the wider open source community. In addition to 'dropping things on the floor,' they also occasionally make calls contrary to the stated opinions of the wider open source community - and when they do so, they do so quietly so that no one notices. After the on-going confusion as to the OSI Certified(sm) nature of Darwin (and the qualifying nature of the APSL 1.2), which resulted in a misinformed journalist lambasting Apple for not acting in good faith in proclaiming Darwin as open source, I think it is necessary to do two things: stick to the lists published on opensource.org as 'OSI Certified,' and light a fire under the hiney of whoever's responsibility it is to update that list. At this point, there are two kinds of licenses not included - licenses that someone hasn't 'gotten to,' and licenses which don't qualify. As long as there is such confusion, the OSI can avoid discussing its decisions to exclude licenses (because they might be on the todo list), and the wider open source community can be misled. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSales Dev. Agreement (was Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:18:08AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Listed below are all the licenses approved by OSI and all the licenses I'm aware of that have been submitted to OSI for its approval. Please let me know if there are any changes, additions or deletions to these lists. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... LIST OF SUBMITTED LICENSES FOLLOWS ... * OpenSales Developer Agreement: http://www.opensales.org/html/devagree.shtml This was posted to license-discuss for, er, license discussion, not for OSI certification per se. I don't believe the agreement falls within the scope of OSI cert, unless someone wants to tell me differently, in which case I'll raise the issue at OpenSales. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
Here are two SPL diffs (a "hacker's" one that looks like a diff file, and a
"lawyer's" one that looks like a redline) as well as the full text of the
SPL. Thanks as always for your consideration.
Danese
- Original Message -
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
We've already said that changing names on a license doesn't affect OSD
conformance, so if that were all that were changed, then no problem. To
be safe, though, I don't know how we can allow other kinds of changes
without exposing ourselves to the risk of a small change that does end up
affecting OSD conformance. The flip side is that if the change is simple,
OSI certification should be relatively fast. I'll try and bring it up on
the board list to see if we can approve it at our next board meeting at
the end of the month.
Patches provided in "diff" format against other OSI-approved licenses are
always appreciated. =)
Brian
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Danese Cooper wrote:
Our "Sun Public License" is a verbatim copy of the MozPL 1.1, except
that we
substituted the word "Sun" everywhere for "Mozilla" and "Netscape", and
we
added documentation to the list of covered things (as separate from
source
code).
So, are we automatically covered because MozPL 1.1 is okay now? Do we
need
to submit separately?
Danese
Title: www.netbeans.org
$ diff -bi mpl-1.1.txt spl-1.0.txt
1c1
< MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.1
---
> SUN PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.0
17c17,18
< including portions thereof.
---
> including portions thereof and corresponding documentation released
> with the source code.
60c61
< any associated interface definition files, scripts used
---
> any associated documentation, interface definition files, scripts used
202c203
< interface and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses
---
> interface ("API") and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses
287c288
< Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") may publish revised and/or new versions
---
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") may publish revised and/or new versions
296,297c297,298
< of any subsequent version of the License published by Netscape. No one
< other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered
---
> of any subsequent version of the License published by Sun. No one
> other than Sun has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered
305c306
< the phrases "Mozilla", "MOZILLAPL", "MOZPL", "Netscape", "MPL", "NPL" or any confusingly
---
> the phrases "Sun," "Sun Public License," or "SPL" or any confusingly
309c310
< Mozilla Public License and Netscape Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer,
---
> Sun Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer,
440c441
< Your choice of the NPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the
---
> Your choice of the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the
443c444
< EXHIBIT A -Mozilla Public License.
---
> Exhibit A -Sun Public License Notice.
445,453c446,449
< The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License
< Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
< compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
< http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
<
< Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
< basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the
< License for the specific language governing rights and limitations
< under the License.
---
> The contents of this file are subject to the Sun Public License
> Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
> compliance with the License. A copy of the License is available at
> http://www.sun.com/
466c462
< version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision by deleting
---
> version of this file under the SPL, indicate your decision by deleting
470c466
< either the MPL or the [___] License.
---
> either the SPL or the [___] License."
NetBeans Projects
The Core |
CVS |
Debugger |
Experimental |
Form Editor |
Java |
OpenIDE |
Source Editor |
Tools |
Web
Title: www.netbeans.org
MPL-SPL Differences
The following is the full text of the MPL/SPL, with differences marked
as follows :
Text struck out - such as this text
- is text that was originally in the MPL, and which has been removed
from the SP
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:17:32AM -0700, Danese Cooper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Larry, Our "Sun Public License" is a verbatim copy of the MozPL 1.1, except that we substituted the word "Sun" everywhere for "Mozilla" and "Netscape", and we added documentation to the list of covered things (as separate from source code). So, are we automatically covered because MozPL 1.1 is okay now? Do we need to submit separately? I've already responded privately to Danese. It's also been mentioned to the CLWG. Anyone know if Mitchel is subscribed to license-discuss? One suggestion I've made in the past regarding the Mozilla license is, that as it appears to be emerging as a standard (and is a good choice of licenses to do so, particularly when dualed with [L]GPL), it might make sense to institute an organization implement something along the lines of the following. Principle degrees of freedom on MozPL variants are: 1. Occurances of "Netscape Communications Corporation" and "Netscape" in section 6, "Versions of the License". 2. "California", "Northern District of California", and "Santa Clara County, California", in section 11, "Miscellaneous". Nowhere else is there specific language as far as I can see. (BTW: I've noticed what appears to be a typo referencing the "NPL" in section 13 of the MozPL). A principal concern of companies and organizations is ceding authoring authority for the license itself to an external company or organization, including possible competitors. Simultaneously, there is a concern that trivially differing licenses might be considered different, leading to license balkanization. As a remedy to both concerns, a standards organization is charged with drafting a reference license, and indicating what variances to the two items of language above may be allowed. Licenses which have these and only these variances from the standard are considered conformant, allowing for code compatibility (aka license transitivity). Eg: software licensed under one set of terms is considered equally validly covered under any of the variant licenses. This issue itself could be addressed either in contractual language or via a certification process similar to OSI. Companies or organizations adopting the standard *retain right of versioning* -- the right is *not* ceded to the central authority. Rather, as new versions of the reference license are drafted, co-licensees have the option of adopting the new language or continuing on their own track. It is, of course, hoped that conformance will be maintained. Previously issued code will continue to be covered under original (and any subsequent) licensing terms. This will allow for conformant license forking of existing projects to maintain conformance in the event any subset of co-licensees attempts to hijack the standard, minimizing hijacking risk. This proposal also allows for continued input into licensing terms and a continued evolution of language, which has been IMO useful to free software licensing in the past. This language does retain a certain US-Centric perspective, however, it should significantly broaden the prospects for license standardization. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
