Subject: Re: Derivative Works of OSL 3.0 and AFL 3.0 [Section 16]
From: Chris Zumbrunn <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:43:06 +0200

On Sep 12, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
>>> Here is what I ended up with:
> Chris and others,
> While I contributed OSL 3.0 for others to use to create licenses as 
> they
> wish, I would sincerely appreciate your not doing so at least until 
> OSL 3.0
> is approved. Now is not the time to confuse everyone with your own 
> versions.
> Nor, as it happens, has OSI decided how to respond to an inevitable
> profusion of OSL-like licenses with subtle and confusing differences.
> License proliferation remains a problem.
> I was warned that this would happen when I first proposed section 16 
> but I
> took a chance in doing so because I wanted to eliminate the problem of 
> me
> being a "license steward." Please don't write a derivative license 
> just to
> prove it can be done. At least not now, and not without careful thought
> first.

Point well taken. I also realize that the same thing that the Copyback 
tries to achieve could be achieved by combining the OSL with a waiver. 
again, the same thing would be true for the AFL. Having a "derivative" 
such as
the AFL or the Copyback license available as its own license that can 
easily be
referenced in Copyright Notices probably justifies their existence if 
they fill
important slots.

I basically see four slots that are worth filling...
Beastie (AFL), Copyback, Copyleft (OSL) and if you want the GPL.

Outside of that I can hardly see a need for another license. But maybe 
my view
is tainted.