On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Might be a good idea to finally start the list of non-open licenses > someone > > suggested a few months ago ;) > > Oh, that is *such* a good idea. > > This is the "list of licenses that people often mistake for being open > source, or whose authors claim are open source, but are actually not > or at least have not been evaluated by the OSI", right? > Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have rejected, including the rationales for rejection. Your list would presumably be a subset, as some licenses might have been submitted and rejected without a later, false claim to being open source. Luis > -K > > > On Oct 14, 2013 2:28 PM, "Tom Callaway" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/14/2013 09:32 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > >> > Obviously, I'd like to see TrueCrypt be truly open source. The ideal > >> > solution is not to have them remove the words "open source" from their > >> > self-description, but rather for their software to be under an > >> > OSI-approved open source license > >> > >> I have not looked at the TrueCrypt license (in depth) in quite some > >> time, but when Fedora and Red Hat reviewed it in 2008, not only was it > >> non-free, it was actually dangerous. > >> > >> (from 2008): > >> > >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000273.html > >> > >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-October/000276.html > >> > >> They appear to have reworded some concerning parts of that license, > >> however, when we pointed out these concerns to them directly in 2008, > >> their response was to forcefully (and rather rudely) reply that the > >> problems caused by their license wording were not problems, but > >> intentional. That alone gave us serious concern as to the intentions of > >> the upstream, especially given the nature of the software under that > >> license. > >> > >> Notable is that Section VI.3 appears to be the same in the TrueCrypt > >> license as it was in 2008. It is arguably necessary for any Free or Open > >> Source license to waive some "intellectual property rights" in order to > >> share those rights (which default to being exclusive to the copyright > >> holder) with others. This section was noted to the TrueCrypt upstream > >> (in 2008) as potentially conflicting with the rest of the license, and > >> again, they pointed out that they were aware of the potential conflict > >> and that it was _intentional_. > >> > >> In short, we were forced to conclude the license was worded the way that > >> it was (with clever wording traps) as a sort of sham license. > >> > >> For what it is worth, I'm not sure the OSI should voluntarily spend any > >> time or effort on the TrueCrypt license unless the TrueCrypt copyright > >> holder brings it forward themselves with a willingness to address these > >> issues in a serious and reasonable fashion. > >> > >> The fact that there are other FOSS implementations for TrueCrypt (most > >> notably tc-play (https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play) minimizes the need > >> to resolve these issues with the upstream, which is why Fedora stopped > >> attempting to do so quite some years ago. > >> > >> ~tom > >> > >> == > >> Fedora Project > >> _______________________________________________ > >> License-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
