On 3/7/13, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm posting this on behalf of Alex Siegal, who is CC'd, because he's >> having trouble posting to our list (the posts disappear, never even end >> up in the moderation queue -- we'll take it up separately with the >> infrastructure crew). Alex writes: >> >>>I would like to use the Frameworx license. What, if any, modifications >>>am I permitted to make and still be distributing source code pursuant >>>to the approved Open Source Frameworx license? For example, can I >>>change "The Frameworx Company" to the name of my company? Also, there >>>are typo's and incorrect cross references in the license. Am I >>>permitted to modify those so they are correct? > > Hi, Alex- > > As a general point, we would recommend using other, better drafted > licenses as the best way to avoid this problem. That having been said, > I hope the discussion will focus on a good-faith attempt to answer > your question. > > I don't think we've ever had formal policies on any of these > questions, but I welcome correction/clarification from those with > older historical memories. > > Fixing typos and incorrect cross references has always been done in > various ways, so I don't think that's objectionable, and in fact, I > wouldn't object to updating the version on the website (assuming the > changes are truly not substantive). > > The other changes... I'm really not sure. Others want to weigh in? >
I would add for your attention, on OSI site, Frameworx license is included in the category: "non-reusable licenses". According to the explanations from the proliferation report[1], non-reusable licenses are "specific to their authors and cannot be reused by others. Many, but not all, of these licenses fall into the category of vanity licenses." As a further note, mailing lists archives show concerns raised on the clauses 1d) and 3b) [2] (and other emails around that time). Please consider the notes above simply the results of a public search (this is what they are). I am not affiliated with OSI, nor a lawyer, nor anything else that would construe the above other than it is: pointers to existing information, in the hope they are useful. [1] http://opensource.org/proliferation-report [2] http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-December/000083.html _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
