Subject: board action on License Committee Report for September 2005
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:33:40 -0400

I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report of
the board's actions for the current set of licenses under discussion.

Note: BCC'ed to the license submittors.

--

Title: Fair License
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:9784:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm
License: in the submission
Comments: administrivial change (removal of URL).
Recommend: approval
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

Title: oxGLODE
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9769:200503:mobnofemphjfnplghkjm
License: there is no license submitted
Comments: Ernie pointed out that he needs to submit a license
    http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:9771:mobnofemphjfnplghkjm
Recommend: rejection
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

The ACE License is a hard case because it's duplicative, not very
readable and not reusable.  It doesn't recognize that some authors may
have rights they cannot waive.  On the other hand, they submitted the
license before we adopted the three new criteria.

Title: ACE License
ReSubmission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:10249:idpbfhfhfaihfnffhpae
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9551:200502:oaoffccikahegfoebbbi
License: in the submission
Comments: Rod Dixon's earlier suggestions were incorporated into the
    resubmission.
Recommend: approval
Status: deferred by the OSI board 9/12 to ask "Can they relicense?"

--

Australia needs different warranty disclaimer wording.  This is a huge
nasty ball of wax.  How many different warranty disclaimers are there
in different countries??

Title: OZPLB Licence
ReSubmission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9498:200502:ibddhmkdckpieiodmcjd
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:8849:200410:jneejnfcgpacdjcfbokf
License: In the submission, as proposed.  Existing license is http://nicta.com.au/ozplb_licence.cfm
Comments: Brendan Scott suggests that disclaimers should go into a
    rider:
    http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10228:200505:emhpkgkiogbojalnmdef
Recommend: approval
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12 with a
    policy (to be written by ESR and submitted to the board)
    recommending against country-specific warranty language.

--

The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL.  One set changes
policy, and the other set changes implementation.  I have suggested
that in order for the OVPL to not be duplicative and to increase its
readability, its implementation changes should actually go into the
CDDL.  Simon Phipps and Alex Bligh are discussing this issue.

Aside from Andy's concern listed below, everybody thinks the license
complies with the OSD.

Title: Open Vendor Public License (OVPL)
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10257:200506:gmbfhookcommfnneakhi
License: http://openvendor.org/Licenses/Open_Vendor_Public_License
Comments: The rationale for the license is at:
    http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=15
    
    Andy Wilson is not sure that the license's mandatory license-back
    falls within the letter and spirit of the OSD.
    http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10642:200508:hlfamcihnmnahfmglhfm
    
Recommend: deferral if you want to wait to see what Simon and Alex's
    negotiations produce in the way of changes to the CDDL.
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

Title: Open Vendor Lessor Public License(OVLPL)
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10257:200506:gmbfhookcommfnneakhi
License: http://openvendor.org/Licenses/Open_Vendor_Lesser_Public_License
Comments: modified from the OVPL so that a derived work can be
    created without causing the OVPL to apply to the portions licensed
    under another license.
Recommend: approval should be tied to the OVPL's approval.
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

Title: The Kannel Software License, Version 1.0
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10533:200508:pphogiheomchblkkndnb
License: http://www.kannel.org/license.shtml
Comments: Apache 1.1 with s/apache/kannel/g.  Andrew Wilson suggested
    Apache 2.0.
Recommend: deferral; still under discussion.
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

Title: CeCILL - 
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10264:200506:cieogbcnmhijcoodgdfa
License: in the submission
Comments: Andy Wilson points out that the GPL compatibility clause
    makes the license trivially OSD compatible, so that it would be
    more honest to distribute dual-licensed GPL and CeCILL.  He also
    objects to the language requiring source distribution, and the
    language requiring conformance to the terms of the license.  John
    Cowan agrees with these last two but points out that a
    contribution licensed under the CeCILL would be licensable under
    both licenses, but that a GPL contribution would not be licensable
    under the CeCILL.
Recommend: rejection because of unclear source distribution language.
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

--

Title: Open-Realty License
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10237:200505:ggmklfgghgeljkpkocmb
License: http://www.open-realty.org/oslicense.html 
Comments: Not a reusable license.  Submittor announced plans to
    resubmit license in
    http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10261:200506:ggmklfgghgeljkpkocmb
    but never resubmitted.
Recommend: rejection because of a lack of clarity of which license
    (submitted versus revised but not submitted should be approved.
Status: voted as recommended by the OSI board 9/12

-- 
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          |     you know what not to do.