Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages
* Engel Nyst [2013-11-22 00:23]: > It seems that OSL 1.1, 2.0, and AFL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 are not > accessible at http://opensource.org/licenses/[SPDX name]. As far as I > know/find, they have been approved. Luis said in http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-November/001389.html that he was happy to add these licenses if there were no objections and there weren't any. Can these please be added. Note that I found some of these licenses an old mirror of the OSI web site: http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/osl-2.0.php http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.0.php http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.1.php -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages
Hi Luis, I've no idea what happened to those early licenses on the OSI website. I lost track of OSI website updates after a while. Several years ago in an email to someone here I specifically "deprecated" early versions of my OSL/AFL licenses, as that term was then understood, meaning that their author had no desire to recommend those license any longer for new software. As I understand it, however, FOSS licensing is forever, so deprecation wasn't supposed to mean any licensing changes to FOSS software that had already been distributed voluntarily under those licenses. Erasure of those licenses from the OSI website wasn't my intention. All that old, previously licensed OSL/AFL software remains FOSS! Continue to use it as the licenses allow. I'm waiting for you to stabilize your website template for license descriptions and I'll be glad to post complete documentation (including perhaps some history) for all of my licenses. I noticed recently, however, that the link to an extensive FAQ I wrote about OSL/AFL no longer works on your website, so I'm waiting for you to clean that up first. And you also need to promise me in return that you won't waste my documentation effort by continuing to classify OSL 3.0 under "Other/Miscellaneous licenses"; AFL 3.0 under "Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses"; and NOSL 3.0 under "Uncategorized Licenses". All such categories mean is that you don't understand the licenses, which is a shame to say about OSI. These licenses were a serious attempt by your predecessors as OSI board members to include good patent provisions in their FOSS copyright licenses. Lots of licenses have since made similar transitions and they also deserve accurate historical and legal footnotes on your website. Thanks for your efforts. I know from my own history how much of a challenge this is. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:10 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages [I've been on vacation, and/or preparing for vacation; apologies for my slow responses here, which will continue through Sunday.] On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: > Is the text intended to no longer be accessible? As far as I know, this is not intentional; as Larry hinted at, there was certainly heavy politics around those licenses, but I don't believe they were intentionally removed from the website. Larry, is that the case? If they were not removed at your request, Larry, I'm happy to have them re-added. (If they were removed at the request of someone other than Larry, I'm more than happy to fix/clarify the historical record.) Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages
[I've been on vacation, and/or preparing for vacation; apologies for my slow responses here, which will continue through Sunday.] On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: > Is the text intended to no longer be accessible? As far as I know, this is not intentional; as Larry hinted at, there was certainly heavy politics around those licenses, but I don't believe they were intentionally removed from the website. Larry, is that the case? If they were not removed at your request, Larry, I'm happy to have them re-added. (If they were removed at the request of someone other than Larry, I'm more than happy to fix/clarify the historical record.) Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages
Engel Nyst wrote: > It seems that OSL 1.1, 2.0, and AFL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 are not accessible at > http://opensource.org/licenses/[SPDX name]. As far as I know/find, they > have been approved. Not only were they approved, they were originally written at the behest of the same OSI board of directors that approved those early licenses. Those board members were experimenting with provisions that sought to protect open source from patents. I worked with them to implement what they then wanted. As you can tell, we went through several iterations. The early attempts were objected to by certain large companies who had patent portfolios to protect. They did not want to tie a copyright license for FOSS software to a reciprocal patent license, particularly one that opened their entire portfolios to such licenses for open source. I find it interesting that, nearly 10 years later, some large patent owners are writing their own broad non-asserts for open source software that accomplish some of the same goals. Open source and patent policies have come a long way In any event, those early OSL and AFL licenses have been "deprecated" by its author, me, now that nearly everyone has stopped fighting over patent provisions and has grown accustomed to OSL/AFL/NOSL 3.0. It has been frustrating to watch people here try to place licenses in broad categories without understanding fully the subtle differences in their legal provisions that can have enormous financial impacts. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Engel Nyst [mailto:engel.n...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:24 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Issue on licenses pages Hello license-discuss, It seems that OSL 1.1, 2.0, and AFL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 are not accessible at http://opensource.org/licenses/[SPDX name]. As far as I know/find, they have been approved. A number of discussions on OSI mailing lists archives reference their approval. They are also not listed in superseded category. Is the text intended to no longer be accessible? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
