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 They are also not listed in superseded category.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