License Committee Report for May 2007

[Russ Nelson]

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

--

Title: Simple Public License (SimPL):
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12796:200705:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
Revised here:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
License: http://www.law.washington.edu/CASRIP/License/SimplePublicLicense.html
Comments: Intended to be a simplified GPL.  DiBona suggests that the
    GPL is well understood and this license is not useful.
Recommend: approval, placement in Redundant category.

--

Title: Educational Community License (ECL 2.0):
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12757:200705:pinhehafopjimikjkpki
and the submittor's summary of discussion:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12794:200705:cljjpgeldckepijfbgjb

License:
  https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola@.../ecl2.txt
    but it's easier to read the version resubmitted here:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:12746:pinhehafopjimikjkpki

Comments: This license is one sentence short of being Apache.  They
    plan to retire the ECL 1.1 when this license is approved.  Brian
    objects in principle but understands why they're not Apache.  Matt
    points out that implicit patent grant in "use" of 1.1 is greater than
    explicit grant in 2.0.
Recommend: approval, replacement of ECL 1.1

--

Title: Socialtext Public License ("STPL"):
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12652:200703:ddflneepifdnbhkgfeln
Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.

--

Title: Artistic License 2.0:
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12636:200703:aaaiclffjeamnghfcijk
License: http://foundation.perl.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0-plain.html
Comments: John approves.
Recommend: approval, replacement of Artistic License.

--

Title: Common Precertification Development and Distribution License (CPDDL)
Submission:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12600:200703:gckfocofecifgfklmmmg
Comments:  Matt, Larry, and Chuck all point out that restrictions on
    commercial use do not comply with the OSD, even if they disappear
    in time.
Recommend: rejection, but we should encourage people to use this
    license anyway because it will result in more code eventually
    falling under an open source license (LGPL).

--

Title: Generic Attribution Provision (GAP)
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11984:200612:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn
with the bulk of the discussion here:
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12392:200701:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.

--
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | In my head, I'm
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | violating your
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | software patent.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | So sue me!

[Russ Nelson]

The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
recommendations except the first.  We:

Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
License), then we will be happy to reconsider.

Approved the ECL2 and Artistic2.

Rejected the CPDDL for commercial restrictions.

Russ Nelson writes:
 > I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
 > for the current set of licenses under discussion.
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Simple Public License (SimPL):
 > Submission:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12796:200705:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
 > Revised here:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
 > License: http://www.law.washington.edu/CASRIP/License/SimplePublicLicense.html
 > Comments: Intended to be a simplified GPL.  DiBona suggests that the
 >     GPL is well understood and this license is not useful.
 > Recommend: approval, placement in Redundant category.
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Educational Community License (ECL 2.0):
 > Submission:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12757:200705:pinhehafopjimikjkpki
 > and the submittor's summary of discussion:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12794:200705:cljjpgeldckepijfbgjb
 >
 > License:
 >   https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola@.../ecl2.txt
 >     but it's easier to read the version resubmitted here:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:12746:pinhehafopjimikjkpki
 >
 > Comments: This license is one sentence short of being Apache.  They
 >     plan to retire the ECL 1.1 when this license is approved.  Brian
 >     objects in principle but understands why they're not Apache.  Matt
 >     points out that implicit patent grant in "use" of 1.1 is greater than
 >     explicit grant in 2.0.
 > Recommend: approval, replacement of ECL 1.1
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Socialtext Public License ("STPL"):
 > Submission:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12652:200703:ddflneepifdnbhkgfeln
 > Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Artistic License 2.0:
 > Submission:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12636:200703:aaaiclffjeamnghfcijk
 > License: http://foundation.perl.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0-plain.html
 > Comments: John approves.
 > Recommend: approval, replacement of Artistic License.
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Common Precertification Development and Distribution License (CPDDL)
 > Submission:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12600:200703:gckfocofecifgfklmmmg
 > Comments:  Matt, Larry, and Chuck all point out that restrictions on
 >     commercial use do not comply with the OSD, even if they disappear
 >     in time.
 > Recommend: rejection, but we should encourage people to use this
 >     license anyway because it will result in more code eventually
 >     falling under an open source license (LGPL).
 >
 > --
 >
 > Title: Generic Attribution Provision (GAP)
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:11984:200612:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn
 > with the bulk of the discussion here:
 >   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:12392:200701:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
 > Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.
 >
 > --
 > --my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | In my head, I'm
 > Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | violating your
 > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | software patent.
 > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | So sue me!

[Matthew Flaschen]

Russ Nelson wrote:
> The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
> recommendations except the first.  We:
>
> Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
> the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
> revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
> License), then we will be happy to reconsider.

It is.  I made sure of it; the latest version posted to the list says,
"Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms
(such as GPL 2.0);"

Also, why were GAP and STPL withdrawn again?

Matthew Flaschen

[cdcoppola]

Thanks to everyone who participated in the ECL conversation and  
helped us refine our thinking (and the license itself).

Chris.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:

> The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
> recommendations except the first.  We:
>
> Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
> the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
> revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
> License), then we will be happy to reconsider.
>
> Approved the ECL2 and Artistic2.
>
> Rejected the CPDDL for commercial restrictions.
>
> Russ Nelson writes:
>> I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
>> for the current set of licenses under discussion.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Simple Public License (SimPL):
>> Submission:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12796:200705:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
>> Revised here:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn: 
>> 12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
>> License: http://www.law.washington.edu/CASRIP/License/ 
>> SimplePublicLicense.html
>> Comments: Intended to be a simplified GPL.  DiBona suggests that the
>>     GPL is well understood and this license is not useful.
>> Recommend: approval, placement in Redundant category.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Educational Community License (ECL 2.0):
>> Submission:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12757:200705:pinhehafopjimikjkpki
>> and the submittor's summary of discussion:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12794:200705:cljjpgeldckepijfbgjb
>>
>> License:
>>   https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/ 
>> chris.coppola@.../ecl2.txt
>>     but it's easier to read the version resubmitted here:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp: 
>> 12746:pinhehafopjimikjkpki
>>
>> Comments: This license is one sentence short of being Apache.  They
>>     plan to retire the ECL 1.1 when this license is approved.  Brian
>>     objects in principle but understands why they're not Apache.  
>> Matt
>>     points out that implicit patent grant in "use" of 1.1 is  
>> greater than
>>     explicit grant in 2.0.
>> Recommend: approval, replacement of ECL 1.1
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Socialtext Public License ("STPL"):
>> Submission:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12652:200703:ddflneepifdnbhkgfeln
>> Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Artistic License 2.0:
>> Submission:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12636:200703:aaaiclffjeamnghfcijk
>> License: http://foundation.perl.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0- 
>> plain.html
>> Comments: John approves.
>> Recommend: approval, replacement of Artistic License.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Common Precertification Development and Distribution  
>> License (CPDDL)
>> Submission:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12600:200703:gckfocofecifgfklmmmg
>> Comments:  Matt, Larry, and Chuck all point out that restrictions on
>>     commercial use do not comply with the OSD, even if they disappear
>>     in time.
>> Recommend: rejection, but we should encourage people to use this
>>     license anyway because it will result in more code eventually
>>     falling under an open source license (LGPL).
>>
>> --
>>
>> Title: Generic Attribution Provision (GAP)
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 11984:200612:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn
>> with the bulk of the discussion here:
>>   http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss: 
>> 12392:200701:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
>> Recommend: withdrawn by submittor in email sent to me today.
>>
>> --
>> --my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | In my head, I'm
>> Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | violating your
>> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | software patent.
>> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | So sue me!

[Andrew C. Oliver-2]

http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/opensource/2007/06/08/Would-be-exhibit-B-adware-aka-attribution-licenses-writhdrawn

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Russ Nelson wrote:
>> The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
>> recommendations except the first.  We:
>>
>> Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
>> the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
>> revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
>> License), then we will be happy to reconsider.
>
> It is.  I made sure of it; the latest version posted to the list says,
> "Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms
> (such as GPL 2.0);"
>
> Also, why were GAP and STPL withdrawn again?
>
> Matthew Flaschen

--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

[Jim Sfekas]

Russ Nelson wrote:

> > The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
> > recommendations except the first.  We:
> >
> > Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
> > the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
> > revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
> > License), then we will be happy to reconsider.
>
> It is.  I made sure of it; the latest version posted to the list says,
> "Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms
> (such as GPL 2.0);"

We think GPL 2.0 compatibility is an important feature for the SimPL, so
we've tried to incorporate suggestions from the list to make sure that the
SimPL is compatible.  We thought we were there per Matt Flaschen's feedback;
if not, please let us know what else might be needed to achieve that goal.  

Just to be sure we're talking about the same version, I've attached the
latest version of the license, as posted to the list last week.

Thanks.

Jim Sfekas
Bob Gomulkiewicz

Preamble

This Simple Public License 2.0 (SimPL 2.0 for short) is a plain language implementation of GPL 2.0.  The words are different, but the goal is the same - to guarantee for all users the freedom to share and change software.  If anyone wonders about the meaning of the SimPL, they should interpret it as consistent with GPL 2.0.

You may do anything that you want with the SimPL text; it's a license form to use in any way that you find helpful.  To avoid confusion, however, if you change the terms in any way then you may not call your license the Simple Public License or the SimPL (but feel free to acknowledge that your license is "based on the Simple Public License"). 

Simple Public License (SimPL) 2.0

The SimPL applies to the software's source and object code and comes with any rights that I have in it (other than trademarks). You agree to the SimPL by copying, distributing, or making a derivative work of the software.

You get the royalty free right to:

• Use the software for any purpose;
• Make derivative works of it (this is called a "Derived Work");
• Copy and distribute it and any Derived Work.

 
If you distribute the software or a Derived Work, you must give back to the community by:

• Prominently noting the date of any changes you make;
• Leaving other people's copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and license terms  in place;
• Providing the source code, build scripts, installation scripts, and interface definitions in a form that is easy to get and best to modify;
• Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms (such as GPL 2.0);
• Conspicuously announcing that it is available under that license.

There are some things that you must shoulder:

• You get NO WARRANTIES. None of any kind;
• If the software damages you in any way, you may only recover direct damages up to the amount you paid for it (that is zero if you did not pay anything). You may not recover any other damages, including those called "consequential damages." (The state or country where you live may not allow you to limit your liability in this way, so this may not apply to you);

 The SimPL continues perpetually, except that your license rights end automatically if:

• You do not abide by the "give back to the community" terms (your licensees get to keep their rights if they abide);
• Anyone prevents you from distributing the software under the terms of the SimPL.

[Russ Nelson]

Jim Sfekas writes:
 > Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > > The OSI board met yesterday, and the board accepted all
 > > > recommendations except the first.  We:
 > > >
 > > > Rejected the SimPL because it intends to solve the same problem as
 > > > the GPL yet is incompatible with the GPL.  If the authors want to
 > > > revise their license so that it is GPL-compatible (as is the Artistic
 > > > License), then we will be happy to reconsider.
 > >
 > > It is.  I made sure of it; the latest version posted to the list says,
 > > "Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms
 > > (such as GPL 2.0);"
 >
 > We think GPL 2.0 compatibility is an important feature for the SimPL, so
 > we've tried to incorporate suggestions from the list to make sure that the
 > SimPL is compatible.  We thought we were there per Matt Flaschen's feedback;
 > if not, please let us know what else might be needed to achieve that goal.  
 >
 > Just to be sure we're talking about the same version, I've attached the
 > latest version of the license, as posted to the list last week.

Ahhhh, I think I see the problem.  In my report to the board, I linked
to the revised submission here:
    http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi
and your copy of the license here:
    http://www.law.washington.edu/CASRIP/License/SimplePublicLicense.html

I did a once-over on the two and they seemed to match, however, I
didn't read it carefully enough, because the latter says "Licensing
any Derived Work under the SimPL," which caused us to reject the
license. That's obviously not GPL compatible, however the license in
the revised submission says "Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or
substantially similar terms (such as GPL 2.0);" which clearly intends
to be GPL compatible.

I'll bring this back to the board.

--
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | In my head, I'm
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | violating your
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone]       | software patent.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | So sue me!