http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12219 <pre> Attention! Your PayPal account will close soon! Dear Member, We have faced some problems with your account Please update the account .If you do not update will be Closed. To Update your account, just confirm your informations.(It only takes a minute.) It's easy: Click the link below to open a secure browser window. Confirm that you're the owner of the account, and then follow the instructions. Relog in your account now Please do not reply to this email. We are unable to respond to inquiries sent to this address. For immediate answers to your questions, visit our Help Center by clicking "Help" at the top of any PayPal page. Copyright © 2012 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. PayPal is located at 2211 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95131. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> service< at >paypal.com 2012-05-11T21:37:23 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12218 <pre> Agreed! Thanks, Jilayne. -K _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-05-01T23:48:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12217 <pre> Usually :) It gets complicated for lawyers to contact non-lawyers about legal issues - generally unadvisable. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Luis Villa 2012-05-01T19:30:43 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12216 <pre> A very useful suggestion -- thanks, Michael (and hi!). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-05-01T01:03:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12215 <pre> On a related note, I recently came across Warrick, a tool for reconstructing past versions of a website, that might come in handy to the folks on this list for various purposes: http://code.google.com/p/warrick/wiki/About_Warrick For example, I am currently using Warrick to reconstruct a past copy of a large site that recently decided to stop distributing its content under a CC license. </pre> Michael Bernstein 2012-04-30T23:20:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12214 <pre> Heh, good to have that confirmation. Yes. We have a general "express deprecation better" issue to deal with, and part of the solution is that every page we have about a deprecated license should recommend using the newest version instead. I think those old versions *are* effectively deprecated, it's just that we don't express that clearly anywhere. -K _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T22:41:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12213 <pre>John, wow. Thank you so much for that incredibly helpful mail. I'm not going to have time to incorporate all this information into our site between now and the next OSI board meeting (this Wednesday), but knowing this is in the archives makes some upcoming tasks much less daunting! -K John Cowan &lt;cowan&lt; at &gt;mercury.ccil.org&gt; writes: _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T22:38:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12212 <pre> http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. Indeed, my internal wayback machine can assure you that all were approved by the OSI board. This was a license I re-wrote through several versions as the OSI board kept asking for different forms of patent defense, only to see industry representatives groan and complain. These patent-defense experiments - drafted with full cooperation at the time of the OSI board and with their comprehensive input -- were finally concluded with the publication of Academic Free License (AFL) 3.0 along with OSL 3.0 (and soon thereafter, at the request of IETF, the Non-Profit OSL 3.0). I previously requested that the earlier versions of those licenses be deprecated. There is probably still software in the wild under those early license versions, and it is still open source! But I recommend that people use AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0. These most recent versions of the license are in widespread use already. /Larry -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan&lt; at &gt;mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:19 PM To: Karl Fogel; license-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; Tom Incorvia; spdx-legal Subject: Re: [License-discuss] SPDX License List v1.14 &amp; OSI questions Karl Fogel scripsit: http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0. &lt;http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http:/opensource.org/licenses/*&gt; http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. The same search shows that 1.1 was approved, but again no evidence for 1.0. http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt, but that link now The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia claims that APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this statement. That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable fuss at the time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first of the new licenses with that property). When the Artistic 1.0 was written, the distinction was not well understood. I don't think that's a problem. No evidence that it ever was, nor do I have any recollection of it. No evidence for it. That agrees with my recollections. I agree. The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU Library vs. Lesser Public License) are entirely editorial. I can provide a list of them for anyone who wants it. OSL 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 2.1 are all on the Archive. Since AFL and OSL were always developed together and submitted together, I think it's safe to assume that AFL 1.0 and OSL 1.2 were both approved, despite the lack of direct evidence. See my .sig. </pre> Lawrence Rosen 2012-04-30T20:19:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12211 <pre>Kevin, You may not have the ability to litigate but your college does to some degree. Earlham likely also has some IP rules that you probably want to be aware of. Probably a good place to start is with your ITPC committee who formulated your copyright policies a while back. You also want to be aware of any requirements of the grants funding the research. Of course, don't do this without speaking to your advisor first. :) In any case, if there is an existing community then following existing community conventions is often the most neighborly thing to do...some researchers are "protective" and don't respond well to "encouragement". My recommendation is to pick an OSI license...either GPL or ECL v2.0 and call it a day. Of the two ECL is more geared toward the needs of a research university with a set of accompanying contributor license agreements. Release your data and papers under one of the OpenData or CC licenses...either permissive or share-alike. Folks amenable to sharing back will...but I've always been on the trusting side of the fence. If you don't believe there is any malicious withholding of code or data then simply providing a good example may be enough. Making it easier to share is better than any legal "incentive" or "coercion". Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Tzeng, Nigel H. 2012-04-30T19:59:58 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12210 <pre>Kevin Hunter scripsit: It depends on the license. For the GPL and LGPL, changes are explicitly forbidden. Some licenses have a provision (typically at the end) letting you clone the license with modifications provided you change the name and remove all references to the original license. Others, like MIT or BSD, are effectively short and un-creative enough to be treated as public domain or at least fair use (and everyone does). But it makes no difference, because you can always say "licensed under the XYZ license with the following additional restrictions/permissions". The GPL and LGPL have language allowing the recipient to ignore additional restrictions if they aren't of specified types, but that only works when the original code was issued under the straight GPL/LGPL. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T19:46:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12209 <pre>Kevin, If you want to make everything fit in the framework of Free Software, you can get a lawyer for free through the Software Freedom Conservancy, and there is a well-established history of them going to court for their clients. But you have to fit in their parameters of Free Software. It's worth discussing with Brad Kuhn. Maybe he'll see a way. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T19:29:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12208 <pre> Embarrassingly, I had not run across those. I'll get back once I've had a chance to digest them. Thank you for the pointer and those links. The problem is that at this point, we're not building a community, but rather adding to an already existing community. In the same breath, I'm painfully aware that as an academic (more specifically a graduate student), I have roughly $0 to litigate or otherwise enforce any license issue that may arise. And this is the rub for more than just my research group. We basically already "live with the fact that not everyone will follow it" (Bruce, in a sister sub-thread). In plainer language, the bottom line is that a law is only as good as the combination of "enforceability" and willingness of a people to follow it. However, we believe there is more than one reason why folks in our sub-sub domain don't freely share their (academically oriented) code and data, including such "simple" problems as - Don't know how - Don't have a venue to do so - Don't believe anyone outside of their crew might be interested in recreating their results - Embarrassed by (perceived) quality of code - Afraid someone will implicate them with bad use of their software - Are not encouraged to do so by our journals. We believe the reluctance to share code is *not* because of much (if any) malicious intent, and we believe having a GPL-esque license would be one more data point with which to make a compelling argument for openness in our community. Having an added incentive, like a "legally binding, if not directly enforceable" license, could help change the ecosystem. In this sense, a BSD-style license doesn't respond to what we want because it enables the status quo. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/abs/nature10836.html We're not tied to OSI approval; that statement was more of an attempt to elucidate that we were hoping for an OSI approved license if it existed, and to ask if the text of the OSI licenses was free for us to munge into our own license. In essence, what is the license for each OSI license? Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Kevin Hunter 2012-04-30T19:22:15 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12207 <pre>Karl Fogel scripsit: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. The same search shows that 1.1 was approved, but again no evidence for 1.0. The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia claims that APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this statement. That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable fuss at the time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first of the new licenses with that property). When the Artistic 1.0 was written, the distinction was not well understood. I don't think that's a problem. No evidence that it ever was, nor do I have any recollection of it. No evidence for it. That agrees with my recollections. I agree. The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU Library vs. Lesser Public License) are entirely editorial. I can provide a list of them for anyone who wants it. OSL 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 2.1 are all on the Archive. Since AFL and OSL were always developed together and submitted together, I think it's safe to assume that AFL 1.0 and OSL 1.2 were both approved, despite the lack of direct evidence. See my .sig. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T19:19:14 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12206 <pre>:-) Well, this is more than a bit of a stretch, but I can argue it this way if you like. The difference is in how they are enforced. To enforce a license to enter land, the plaintiff can ask for criminal action on basis of tresspass, tresspass being a greater offense than breach of contract. The defendant claims there was a license and the plaintiff shows why one did not exist in those particular circumstances. Similarly, the plaintiff sues for copyright infringement rather than breach of contract, and doesn't set out to prove consent and otherwise build a contract case. The only value in licenses is that they can be enforced. If you don't care about enforcement, publish what you want as a guideline, and live with the fact that not everyone will follow it. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T18:42:34 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12205 <pre>Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit: In general I agree, but having a mandatory-sharing license can actually work to the advantage of investigators. They can say to their bosses, "Look, I can modify this code at a cost of $X, and we have to make the modified version available. Or I can develop my own code at a cost of $Y &gt;&gt; $X. You pick." Yes, it would violate the OSD's anti-discrimination rules. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T18:23:50 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12204 <pre>You probably have already done this but I suggest seeing if the ScienceCommons and NeuroCommons projects offers something to your liking. http://neurocommons.org/page/Main_Page http://creativecommons.org/science It would be highly useful to have a single set of licenses to cover data, software and publications along with the usual set of CC like options (BY, BY-SA, BY-SA-NC, etc). The most likely place to find where we're at with that is within the ScienceCommons community. Working with that community might be fruitful for you. IMHO you are better served to release under a permissive license and build a community that encourages sharing than attempt to force sharing. The neurocommons project is an excellent exemplar in my opinion. I believe most of their code is BSD or something similar. I like it far more than the EPPA model...but perhaps EPPA driven to be that way since they use the GAMS commercial product. Regarding your desire for an OSI approved license that meets your criteria...I pretty sure it doesn't exist. Regards, Nigel On 4/30/12 11:36 AM, "Kevin Hunter" &lt;hunteke&lt; at &gt;earlham.edu&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Tzeng, Nigel H. 2012-04-30T18:14:28 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12203 <pre> Jilayne, I'm about two months behind on taking care of this. Thanks for putting together such an easy-to-use spreadsheet, and my apologies for the delay. I'll respond inline here, so it's easy for others to see and chime in: First, you asked this about Academic Free License versions AFL-1.1, AFL-1.2, AFL-2.0, and AFL-2.1: &gt; My understanding is that all the Academic Free Licenses were OSI &gt; approved, but I can't find a good url to the actual license text of &gt; the older versions (just this mirror). question for OSI: &gt; &gt; 1) Was this specific license/version OSI approved? &gt; 2) if yes, is there a better link to the license text? I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to 3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to "/licenses/afl-3.0.php", and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0. This highlights the need for a clearer license obsolescense process at OSI and the need to have findable records of approved-but-now-obsolete licenses. http://projects.opensource.org/redmine/issues/4 and http://projects.opensource.org/redmine/issues/25 are about these, respectively. We have a rough idea how to do the former and it's just a matter of implementing it; as for the latter, I don't know, and will raise the issue at the OSI's upcoming face-to-face in May and in a separate inquiry on this list. You asked: &gt; Was this [Apache 1.0] ever OSI-approved? For the reasons given above, I can't tell, sorry. I can find Apache 2.0, but not 1.0. (In other words, one thing we need is a record of licenses that were considered but not approved, so that these searches wouldn't always depend on how one wants to interpret a negative result!) Regarding Apache 1.1, you wrote: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded licenses" &gt; category list That's correct. That license should be indexed only from the "superseded licenses" list, although of course the license page's URL itself should be permanent -- another thing we haven't done well, see e.g. http://opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/apache2.0.php gets a 404. Regarding Apple Public Source License 1.0 (APSL-1.0) you ask: &gt; Was this ever OSI approved? Note at top of fedora url says: This &gt; license is non-free. At one point, it could be found at &gt; http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt, but that link now &gt; redirects to APSL 2.0. A copy of the license text has been taken &gt; from archive.org's October 01, 2007 revision. Again, I can't tell. I would hope not, though, given that the Fedora page says the license is non-free. Regarding APSL-1.1 you ask simply: &gt; Was this ever OSI approved? Again, I don't know. Similarly, regarding APSL-1.2 you ask: &gt; Was this ever OSI approved? And again, I don't know. The earliest OSI page for APSL (that I can find any reference to) is http://opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/apsl-2.0.php. Though that page itself is now gone, it was linked to from our license list of 2006-10-31, so we can assume it was approved. Regarding the Artistic License 1.0, you have done some fine detective work, and you asked: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded licenses" &gt; category list. &gt; &gt; Also note that Perl link has 10 clause version of license, whereas &gt; OSI link has 9 clause with note at top about additional clause. for &gt; searching/templating reasons, these should probably be listed as two &gt; different licenses. Suggest naming as follows: &gt; Artistic License 1.0 (Perl) // Artistic-Perl-1.0 &gt; Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0 &gt; &gt; thoughts? Excellent idea, except maybe we should put the "(Perl)" before the version number, since "Perl" describes a flavor of the license and that flavor could conceivably happen to other versions, though we hope not. That would also match the proposed SPDX short name. Thus Artistic License (Perl) 1.0 // Artistic-Perl-1.0 Artistic License 1.0 // Artistic-1.0 Would that work for you? For now I've renamed http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0 to opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0, edited it to link correctly to the superseding version (Artistic-2.0), and to link to a new page opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0. Now, independently of the above, there is a serious bug in the Perl clause, and while I understand why it was OSI-approved, I think the OSI approved its *intended* meaning rather than its textual meaning. This should really be a separate thread, but I want to at least write it down here now, so there's a record of it somewhere: The OSI page above says: | Some versions of the artistic license contain the following clause: | | 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is | always permitted provided that the use of this Package is | embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this | Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial | distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of | this Package. | | With or without this clause, the license is approved by OSI for | certifying software as OSI Certified Open Source. That's great, except s/commercial/proprietary/ :-(. What the text obviously means is "proprietary", and furthermore, if it were to be interpreted literally as "commercial", then it would (to my mind) be clearly not open source. I'm not sure what to do about this now. I just wanted to mention it. Any review of old licenses, such as you have done, is bound to turn up issues like this. Thank goodness it's an issue with Artistic-Perl-1.0 and not with, say, GPL-2.0 :-). Regarding old BSD 4-clause (or "original" BSD) you ask: &gt; Was this OSI approved? Again, I don't know. Regarding the "CNRI Python GPL Compatible License Agreement" (CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible), you ask: &gt; not on OSI site, but was OSI approved?? Please clarify will need &gt; link from OSI site once (if) updated Again, I don't know. Note that with the Python licenses, the situation is very complex, because we're currently evaluating submissions from them. While that shouldn't technically affect past licensing decisions, in practice at may at least affect the names by which we call some of those past licenses. See http://projects.opensource.org/redmine/issues/3. Ball is in their court right now. At this point, looking at where I am in the spreadsheet (the scrollbar thumb is still disturbingly high) and the importance of getting some kind of response to you and the group, I'm not spending a lot of time searching for the answers -- I'm just answering. Obviously, some of these issues will have to be addressed in followup steps, and one of the things I intend to bring up at the OSI face-to-face meeting is the size and relative priorities of the licensing work backlog. It's beyond what one or two volunteers can address, IMHO. If anyone here knows better answers to some of these questions, or has suggestions for process improvement, please say something. Regarding the CNRI Python License (CNRI-Python), you ask: &gt; short identifier missing on license list and license page (thus, &gt; url probably also needs to be updated there and here?) I've fixed the two immediate problems there, thanks! It probably does need to be updated elsewhere, but I didn't see those spots in a quick search, so am leaving that issue for now. Regarding "Common Public Attribution License 1.0" (CPAL-1.0), you write: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded &gt; licenses" category list Hmm, I see it on http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical -- are you sure? Regarding "Eiffel Forum License v1.0" (EFL-1.0), you write: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded &gt; licenses" category list That's expected for a superseded license (as per Apache 1.1 above). Regarding "European Union Public License 1.1" (EUPL-1.1) you wrote: &gt; UPDATED url for license &gt; OSI needs to update link as well on their website Turns out we did so, between when you sent the spreadsheet and now :-). But thanks for noticing this. Regarding "Fair License" (FAIR), you wrote: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Fixed now, thanks. Regarding GPL-1.0, you ask: &gt; was this ever OSI approved? Good question. I'm not sure, but I doubt it, as by the time OSI was formed, GPL 2.0 had been published for years already. Thus 1.0 might never have been considered. Regarding GPL-2.0 (and sometimes GPL-3.0) "with Autoconf exception", and "with Bison exception", and "with classpath exception", and "with font exception", and "with GCC exception", you ask: &gt; if the underlying license is OSI approved, then is the exception &gt; also approved? In my opinion, yes, and there's no need for a separate license approval process. If a license is approved, then that license + an exception should be considered approved when the exception clearly adds no restrictions or requirements for the licensee, as is the case here. In a sense such exceptions can simply be considered additional estoppel (danger, danger, I'm using the word "estoppel" but I'm not a lawyer) on the part of the licensor, similar to having made a public promise not to assert patents or something like that. The mere accumulation of such statements, which would affect only the behavior of the licensor, not the licensee, never narrows the underlying license. Regarding GNU Library General Public License v2 only (LGPL-2.0) you ask: &gt; Was this ever OSI approved? I don't know. I suspect the answer to that one would not be so hard to find, but I want to plough to the end of this spreadsheet right now and get these responses posted. I did a cursory search on the OSI site and didn't find any evidence of approval. Anyone here know about LGPL-2.0? Regarding "Lucent Public License Version 1.0 (Plan9)" (LPL-1.0), you say: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded &gt; licenses" category list That's expected, as we're on LPL 1.02 now. Regarding LPL-1.02, you pointed out: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Fixed now! Thank you. Regarding MirOS, you pointed out: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Likewise fixed now. Thanks again :-). Regarding Mozilla-1.0, you write: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded &gt; licenses" category list Yes, that's expected now that Mozilla-1.1 has been approved. Regarding Multics, you said: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Fixed. Regarding "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0" (NPOSL-3.0), you said: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Fixed. Regarding Nokia Open Source License (Nokia), you said: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page and on &gt; license page Fixed, and thanks for noticing both sides of that problem. Regarding "Open Software License 1.0" (OSL-1.0), you wrote: &gt; OSI approved, but only can find license on the "superseded &gt; licenses" category list As expected, due to approval of (latest) OSL-3.0. Regarding OSL-2.0 and OSL-2.1, you asked: &gt; is this OSI approved? (versions 1.0 and 3.0 are, but this one not &gt; listed anywhere on site) I don't know. Anyone? Bueller? Regarding "Simple Public License 2.0" (SimPL-2.0), you wrote: &gt; OSI site has wrong short identifier on license list page and on &gt; license text page (and has it in two place on license text page??) &gt; will need updated url Whew! Thanks. All fixed now. New URL is: http://opensource.org/licenses/SimPL-2.0 Regarding "Sun Public License v1.0" (SPL-1.0), you wrote: &gt; OSI site has wrong short identifier on license list page and on &gt; license text page. Will need updated url Fixed all. (I think some of these might be due to SPDX identifiers changing after the last time we did a sync? Not sure.) New URL is: http://opensource.org/licenses/SPL-1.0 Regarding "W3C Software and Notice License" (W3C), you wrote: &gt; OSI site missing short identifier on license list page Fixed. Most of the missing identifiers on the license list page were because I'd first thought we wouldn't explicitly give the identifier when it's already part of the license name and "obvious". But I think your suggestion of consistency is better anyway. Okay; didn't address any of these. Well, I was hoping this email would do it. I realize the email leaves some questions unanswered, but I think they're ones the OSI has to figure out internally (e.g., get a handle on records of all past license approvals). At least by having this mail we have all the issues laid out in an archiveable way, and others can follow up if they know things. I will make sure to link to it from the relevant tickets in Redmine too. Thank you again for the extremely thorough set of questions and bug reports! Best, -Karl _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Karl Fogel 2012-04-30T17:25:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12202 <pre>Bruce Perens scripsit: Do you have case law for this claim? Conditional copyright licenses are most closely analogous to conditional licenses to enter land, where in general the condition can be anything, provided it's not against public policy or otherwise problematic in itself. Of course, in civil law land, licenses are contracts, period. </pre> John Cowan 2012-04-30T17:13:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12201 <pre>Hi Kevin, People who understand what they're doing won't generally write a license that can't be enforced because it makes them look stupid. What you need is a contract, not a license. In general the Open Source licenses only deal with copyright, and you can't compel some action unrelated to copyright, like publication of research results, with a simple license. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Bruce Perens 2012-04-30T16:34:35 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12200 <pre>Hullo List, For a scientific computing project, I'd like to encourage redistribution of software upon publication of research results (e.g. academic journals) by third parties using our code. I'm not currently aware of any license geared toward this scenario. (There are lots of examples of academic journals requiring this, but I'm having a difficult time tracking down a license for /code/ that is generally used to inform an academic publication. More specifically, the sub-sub discipline for which the code I have written will potentially be used currently does not run rich with a FOSS ethos.) As an example, if we license our code under the GPL, then folks who publish papers with results from use of our software are never redistributing any /software/, only publishing a paper, and are thus not required to share code. However, we feel from a scientific standpoint that it's crucial that the code (*and* data) used for publication results be shared. The closest I've been able to find is the EPPA license, which has this as provision 6 (currently available from: http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/IGSM/eppadl_form ): ----- 6. Any party which publishes results from a modification of the Software Model must also publish the source code of their modifications, in the same form as the Software Model is here released, and under the same license terms. Said party must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that the files were changed and the date of the change. ----- Unfortunately, there are other parts of the license which are not acceptable to us (e.g. we do not want to limit non-academic use) So, are there other licenses geared toward code (and data) used for academic publications? Also, in the case that there are no other licenses acceptable/available to us, a second, meta-license question: How are the texts of the various OSI approved licenses themselves licensed? Are they free for folks to modify? (Perhaps to be described as a 'modified-OSI license' when used ...?) Also, please, I'm not looking for responses along the lines of "you can't enforce it so ignore it." I'm very specifically focused on the licensing aspect. (As they say, "One problem at a time!") Thank you, Kevin _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Kevin Hunter 2012-04-30T15:36:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/12199 <pre> On Apr 5, 2012, at 11:35 AM, John Cowan wrote: -0... but just because something had been around for a long time (BSD/MIT) is no reason to maintain it as a 1st class citizen... The idea of a 1st class list is to "prioritize" the better licenses for a class of licenses, and the ALv2 is "better" than BSD/MIT. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss </pre> Jim Jagielski 2012-04-15T14:37:44 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general