Subject: openbravo license: another variant of the MPL
From: Michael Tiemann <tiemann@opensource.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:26:03 -0400
Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:26:03 -0400
I hate to be the one to stir the pot and suggest yet another open source
license for review, so I'm writing to license-discuss first, not
license-review.  The openbravo license (
http://www.openbravo.com/legal/license.html) clearly sits much closer to the
Mozilla Public License (MPL) version 1.1 than does the CPAL, which the OSI
has approved.  If law really was like code, then one could argue
mathematically that a license that properly sits between two approved
licenses should be implicitly approved.  But that's not how things have
historically worked for the OSI, at least not at a form process level.

I would like to use and recommend openbravo, but feel conflicted about the
license's non-approved status.

WTF (What's the fix)?

Another license to be approved?

More progress on license templatization?

A theory of approval continuity (i.e., a license that sits properly between
two approved licenses is approved)?


I hate to be the one to stir the pot and suggest yet another open source license for review, so I'm writing to license-discuss first, not license-review.  The openbravo license (http://www.openbravo.com/legal/license.html) clearly sits much closer to the Mozilla Public License (MPL) version 1.1 than does the CPAL, which the OSI has approved.  If law really was like code, then one could argue mathematically that a license that properly sits between two approved licenses should be implicitly approved.  But that's not how things have historically worked for the OSI, at least not at a form process level.

I would like to use and recommend openbravo, but feel conflicted about the license's non-approved status.

WTF (What's the fix)?

Another license to be approved?

More progress on license templatization?

A theory of approval continuity (i.e., a license that sits properly between two approved licenses is approved)?