Jilayne Lovejoy <[email protected]> writes: >Indeed! Thanks Karl, John, and Larry. This is great. I will take all >this info, incorporate or update the SPDX License List as applicable and >then send a revised version. I think we will have cut the list of issues >down considerably at that point!
Agreed! Thanks, Jilayne. -K >On 4/30/12 4:38 PM, "Karl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>John, wow. Thank you so much for that incredibly helpful mail. I'm not >>going to have time to incorporate all this information into our site >>between now and the next OSI board meeting (this Wednesday), but knowing >>this is in the archives makes some upcoming tasks much less daunting! >> >>-K >> >>John Cowan <[email protected]> writes: >>>Karl Fogel scripsit: >>> >>>> I can find no record of approval of the Academic Free License prior to >>>> 3.0. As of 2006-10-31, we were linking to "/licenses/afl-3.0.php", >>>> and now of course we link to http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0. >>> >>>http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://opensource.org/licenses/* is >>>your friend. Filtering for "afl" on the page shows that afl-1.1.php, >>>afl-1.2.php, afl-2.0.php, afl-2.1.php all existed, so I think we can >>>infer that they were approved. No evidence for 1.0, though. >>> >>>> > Was this [Apache 1.0] ever OSI-approved? >>>> >>>> For the reasons given above, I can't tell, sorry. I can find Apache >>>> 2.0, but not 1.0. >>> >>>The same search shows that 1.1 was approved, but again no evidence for >>>1.0. >>> >>>> Regarding Apple Public Source License 1.0 (APSL-1.0) you ask: >>>> >>>> > Was this ever OSI approved? Note at top of fedora url says: This >>>> > license is non-free. At one point, it could be found at >>>> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt, but that link now >>>> > redirects to APSL 2.0. A copy of the license text has been taken >>>> > from archive.org's October 01, 2007 revision. >>> >>>The Archive shows that APSL 1.2 was approved. Wikipedia claims that >>>APSL 1.0 was also approved, but gives no authority for this statement. >>>That also matches my recollections (there was a considerable fuss at the >>>time, because it was OSI-approved but not FSF-free, the first of the new >>>licenses with that property). >>> >>>> That's great, except s/commercial/proprietary/ :-(. >>> >>>When the Artistic 1.0 was written, the distinction was not well >>>understood. I don't think that's a problem. >>> >>>> Regarding old BSD 4-clause (or "original" BSD) you ask: >>>> >>>> > Was this OSI approved? >>>> >>>> Again, I don't know. >>> >>>No evidence that it ever was, nor do I have any recollection of it. >>> >>>> >>>> Regarding the "CNRI Python GPL Compatible License Agreement" >>>> (CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible), you ask: >>>> >>>> > not on OSI site, but was OSI approved?? Please clarify will need >>>> > link from OSI site once (if) updated >>> >>>No evidence for it. >>> >>>> Regarding GPL-1.0, you ask: >>>> >>>> > was this ever OSI approved? >>>> >>>> Good question. I'm not sure, but I doubt it, as by the time OSI was >>>> formed, GPL 2.0 had been published for years already. Thus 1.0 might >>>> never have been considered. >>> >>>That agrees with my recollections. >>> >>>> Regarding GPL-2.0 (and sometimes GPL-3.0) "with Autoconf exception", >>>> and "with Bison exception", and "with classpath exception", and "with >>>> font exception", and "with GCC exception", you ask: >>>> >>>> > if the underlying license is OSI approved, then is the exception >>>> > also approved? >>>> >>>> In my opinion, yes, and there's no need for a separate license >>>> approval process. If a license is approved, then that license + an >>>> exception should be considered approved when the exception clearly >>>> adds no restrictions or requirements for the licensee, as is the case >>>> here. >>> >>>I agree. >>> >>>> Regarding GNU Library General Public License v2 only (LGPL-2.0) you >>>> ask: >>>> >>>> > Was this ever OSI approved? >>>> >>>> I don't know. I suspect the answer to that one would not be so hard >>>> to find, but I want to plough to the end of this spreadsheet right now >>>> and get these responses posted. I did a cursory search on the OSI >>>> site and didn't find any evidence of approval. Anyone here know about >>>> LGPL-2.0? >>> >>>The differences between 2.0 and 2.1, other than the name (GNU Library >>>vs. Lesser Public License) are entirely editorial. I can provide a list >>>of them for anyone who wants it. >>> >>>> Regarding OSL-2.0 and OSL-2.1, you asked: >>>> >>>> > is this OSI approved? (versions 1.0 and 3.0 are, but this one not >>>> > listed anywhere on site) >>>> >>>> I don't know. Anyone? Bueller? >>> >>>OSL 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 2.1 are all on the Archive. Since AFL and OSL >>>were always developed together and submitted together, I think it's safe >>>to assume that AFL 1.0 and OSL 1.2 were both approved, despite the lack >>>of direct evidence. See my .sig. >> _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
