Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Precertification Development and Distribution License
From: Chuck Swiger <chuck@codefab.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:25:29 -0800

On Mar 7, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Marc Whipple wrote:
> We would like to propose a new Open Source license called the  
> Common Precertification Development and Distribution License  
> ("CPDDL") for certification. It is based on the Common Development  
> and Distribution License ("CDDL") of which Sun Microsystems is the  
> license steward.
[ ... ]
> In order to provide incentives for such development either by  
> commercial entities or by the employees of such entities with their  
> approval and consent, the CPDDL provides that commercial usage  
> rights for software developed under its terms are limited to active  
> contributors during the development process and for a limited time  
> thereafter.

Thanks for the submission, and I hope we can provide feedback which  
will help you obtain your goals while still using an Open Source  
license, but restricting commercial reuse is a non-starter.  See OSD  
#1, #5, & #6; your CPDDL clause 2.1e violates them:

> ?	(e) The license granted under this Section shall not allow any  
> Commercial
> Use of the Original Software, or portions thereof, other than by a
> Contributor who has submitted at least one (1) Modification which has
> been accepted by an authorized Source Code Library Monitor. Any
> Contributor who has submitted at least one (1) Modification which has
> been accepted by an authorized Source Code Library Monitor may use the
> Original Software, or portions thereof, in Commercial Use subject  
> to the
> other terms of this License.

If the software is open source, it must permit people to use, change,  
and modify the software for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

[ ... ]
> To our knowledge, such a combination of temporary restriction and  
> license-term shifting has not been incorporated into an Open Source  
> license before. We are aware that this is a departure from  
> customary Open Source licensing techniques, and we ask that you  
> consider our goals and our attempt to attain them while maintaining  
> the spirit of Open Source in a highly regulated, highly competitive  
> environment with open minds. We are prepared to defend our aim, but  
> we are also prepared to accept comment, criticism, and sincere  
> attempts to improve our method of achieving it. We welcome, and  
> would be grateful for, your input.

I proposed such a license back in 2003:

    http://www.pkix.net/~chuck/Licenses/ENRL.html

...and the OSI board's feedback was that this is not an Open-Source  
license as it stands, but would become OSD-compliant after the  
restriction period had expired.  I believe the same would apply to  
the CPDDL.

-- 
-Chuck