On Thursday, 8 August 2019 19:47:34 CEST Smith, McCoy wrote: > This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code.
If you mean it doesn't require the person initially creating the software and putting it under this license, then yes, you're right that it doesn't. I am obviously not a lawyer (or of similar profession), but I don't know any other license that actually puts such a requirement on the initial author (the first person has to act in good faith). If you mean it doesn't require subsequent modifications to be provided in source code: Why do you say that? Each change has to be published in its original form. If you make a change in source code, it has to be published in source code. If you make the change in something that isn't source code requiring source code to be published would be an impossible-to-fulfill obligation. > The patent grants are also inconsistent as between the preamble and the > grant itself. This is probably indeed due to me not having the required legal skill set, but I don't see it. Are you referring to you may do everything with this software that would otherwise infringe [...] any patent claim any contributor can license that covers this software as of that contributor's latest contribution vs You are granted a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty- free, irrevocable (except in the case of breaching the obligations listed in section 2) patent license for all patent claims covering contributions as embodied in this software and licensable by respective contributors without other scope limitations. ? If so, the wording is slightly different (and I have thought about sgnificantly reducing the preamble so there's only the two paragraphs below it), but I don't see how they are semantically different. > > You really should be working with a legal person on this if you're serious > about it; I'm serious in the sense that I see/have a need that isn't currently covered by any license I could find. If that changes I'll stop spending my time on this. > there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language > inconsistencies in all the drafts you have presented so far on this mailing > list. Thank you for your candor. > People of course are welcome to comment if they so choose but I'm > not sure I see a reason for anyone to spend the time given these issues > seem to persist as your drafts continue to evolve. Without consulting a lawyer (which is on a todo list) I don't understand how you'd expect these issues to not persist between drafts without them being pointed out (though I do recognize, of course, that people may feel there's too much wrong for it to make sense for them to do so). To the best of my knowledge I've incorporated feedback where it was given in a way that enabled me to improve the license draft. While I won't submit the license to the OSI for approval without it going through a lawyer beforehand I was under the impression (from the archives of the mailing list) that this kind of discussion is what it's for. If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize. > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] > On Behalf Of Moritz Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License > > Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from Contribution Public License > (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL). I've also slightly reordered the > license text for (what I think makes for) easier reading. Attached in > plaintext is the new draft. > > Thanks for your time, > Moritz > > On Saturday, 3 August 2019 23:48:38 CEST you wrote: > > Hello, > > > > due to me being unable to find a reciprocal software license I'm truly > > happy with I've been working on developing my own: > > > > https://github.com/MoritzMaxeiner/contribution-public-license/blob/mas > > ter/ > > LICENSE.org > > > > I would - eventually - like to submit the license for OSI approval, > > but thought sharing it here, with this mailing list's audience, in > > order to gather feedback beforehand would be prudent. > > The current draft is attached in plain text as LICENSE.txt and the > > license it in turn is under (due to it being derived from the Patches > > Back Public > > License) is attached in plain text as CHANGING. > > > > What I wanted was a license that's as close as possible in spirit to > > the MIT license, except requiring any modifications to the software to > > be contributed back to the public under the same license. > > After looking over the list of OSI-approved licenses there were three > > I could identify as being close to what I want, so here are my reasons > > as to why they aren't satisfactory for me: > > > > Reciprocal Public License (RPL-1.5): > > It's not only too long and complex for my purposes, but it also > > explicitly defers arbitration to Colorado, USA, which I cannot accept. > > > > Eiffel Forum License, Version 2 > > While being sensibly short and concise it only encourages - but does > > not require - modified versions to be publicly released. > > > > Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL) > > It's copy-left for things such as static linking, containers, etc. > > (section 3, paragraph A) and it deals with patents and trademarks. > > > > I hope the above highlights that there's a particular niche that's not > > quite filled yet. > > > > Thank you for your time, > > > > Moritz > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc > e.org _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
