Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
An Open Software License 3.0 explanation
Lawrence Rosen has posted a lengthy explanation
(and advocacy piece) on version 3.0 of the Open Software License.
"Compare the patent provisions of OSL 3.0 to the patent provisions of
the GPL variants; OSL 3.0 uses simpler and more precise language and
reflects no political, anti-patent agenda. Further, it recognizes and
respects patents and licenses them appropriately for open source
purposes."
(Log in to post comments)
Give it up, Mr. Rosen Posted Jan 9, 2008 16:44 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The problem with Rosen's license is that it is a copyleft license and is thus incompatible with everything else, and almost no one uses it. The result is that any code licensed under its terms can't be mixed with anything else.Rosen objects to political language in the GPL, but that's just a matter of taste; from a legal point of view all that stuff is a no-op. We're programmers. We have to deal with flawed APIs and ABIs all the time. Even if Rosen's license is arguably better, it's incompatible, therefore not very useful.
Give it up, Mr. Rosen Posted Jan 9, 2008 17:15 UTC (Wed) by cate (subscriber, #1359) [Link] You are wrong :-) Copyleft licenses are per se not incompatible, simply they don't want additional restrictions, but you can usually mix copyleft licenses. There is also the "academic" version, which he compare with BSD. Anyway he say that his license is more like the LGPL. The license is like a "source" license, not a aggregate work license, so I don't think incompatibilities.
Give it up, Mr. Rosen Posted Jan 9, 2008 17:38 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It's incompatible with the GPL (all versions), which is the case that matters. It's useless claiming that this is a problem with the GPL, which was there first.It tries to be like the LGPL, but I don't see how it would work for header files or static linking, where the code gets modified and links with other code. The LGPL has specific language to deal with that. I suppose that someone could OPL the code and BSD the headers.
Give it up, Mr. Rosen Posted Jan 9, 2008 18:47 UTC (Wed) by cate (subscriber, #1359) [Link] I'm not sure that it is always incompatible with GPL (modulo to be very strict, but in this case GPL3 is not compatible with GPL2). GNU says: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSLRant but the document cited in this LWN article tell that "obtain explicit assent" is not a strong requirement. (explicit assent transform the license in contract). How many GPL program do ask you to accept the license? So no big issue (but you must set-up such tools). GNU tell us that there are other incompatibilities (but not explicit stated). I'll research further. IMHO is a good license to use in a dual license program. And IMHO it is good to have dual license for legal protection.
nonsense on GPL compatibility, explicit assent, dual-licensing Posted Jan 9, 2008 21:38 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I'm not sure that it is always incompatible with GPL (modulo to be very strict, but in this case GPL3 is not compatible with GPL2). According to the FSF's legal counsel it is incompatible with the GPL. Moreover, the incompatibility is obvious on its face—the OSL makes requirements beyond those of the GPL, such as the requirement of "express assent" (below). This illustrates the reason why copyleft license are almost always incompatible (even different versions of the same copyleft), unless they are explicitly designed to be compatible. Two weak LGPL-style copylefts can be used together in one program, but even then the code cannot be directly mixed. Nor can a weak copyleft be mixed at all with a strong copyleft (unless they were designed to be compatible, like LGPL and GPL). This is why designing new copyleft licenses is not to be undertaken lightly. (And why the change to GPLv3 was/is not taken lightly, although that transition is eased by the "or any later version" used in a lot of GPLed code, precisely to allow bugfixes in the license. Similar "or any later version" language is found in Creative Commons ShareAlike licenses, for the same reason.) the document cited in this LWN article tell that "obtain explicit assent" is not a strong requirement.From the license: If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. [emphasis added]It's certainly a vague requirement, but there's no question it's a requirement. Moreover, I've never heard that vagueness in legal obligations is a good thing in a free-software license. In any case, Rosen's claims about needing contract law to strengthen the license seem like pure FUD—the GPL has been enforced in court now multiple times (and most companies capitulate before it gets to court). He made this argument years ago, and I wish he would just admit that he has been proven wrong. IMHO is a good license to use in a dual license program. And IMHO it is good to have dual license for legal protection. Dual licensing doesn't give you additional "legal protection", it gives you less. A licensee can use the code under the weaker of the two licenses, so you lose the stronger of the two protections. The reason for dual licensing is increased compatibility with other code licenses. This is why Mozilla licenses under GPL/LGPL/MPL, for example. But there's not much incentive to dual license under a license (OSL) that hardly anyone uses.
Obviously we're not the target audience Posted Jan 9, 2008 21:46 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Obviously the target audience for this license is big companies that want to hold on to their patents. Not you and me. Larry has stuck with this for a long time dispite the fact that nobody else is all that interested. I think it's best viewed as a theoretical project - Larry's statement of how an Open Source license should be written, from his viewpoint. I can't say I'd encourage anyone to use it.Bruce
Obviously we're not the target audience Posted Jan 9, 2008 22:53 UTC (Wed) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] Nontheless, the fact that he uses a name "Open Software License" means he believes that his license should be "the" open source license.... He really should have called his license the Rosen Open Software License or such. The fact that he was the legal counsel for the OSI for some time does not entitle him to make the board claim of his license being the "Open Software."
Developers and orgs: AVOID it Posted Jan 10, 2008 5:20 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] The problem is that it's GPL-incompatible, and therefore not relevant.My article Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else goes into this in detail. Most organizations, certainly, develop free software / open source software so that it can be used, and this incompatibility with the most popular FLOSS license makes that difficult to achieve.
|
|||||||||||||