That page is linked from http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0 Larry (at the bottom) and no other narrative. What is the specific change you are requesting?
S. On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > Open Source friends, > > I discovered in the past few days on other lists that there are several > misleading descriptions of my AFL/OSL/NOSL 3.0 licenses on FSF and OSI > websites. Neither site bothered to publish my own description of these > licenses, and their own characterizations are incorrect. > > Please see this: http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm. > > I would appreciate it if FSF and OSI would copy this document to their own > websites instead of inventing their own. > > Best regards, /Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:32 AM > To: License submissions for OSI review <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:03:33AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > McCoy is proposing a BSD license plus patent license. It is an okay > > FOSS license. But AFL 3.0 did that very thing 10 years ago. The only > > reason for AFL 3.0 not being accepted generally for that same purpose > > is the FSF's complaint, "contains contract provisions." That kind of > > quasi-legal balderdash is directly relevant to what McCoy and others > > want to do. > > > > And if AFL 3.0 isn't satisfactory for some random reason, then use the > > Apache 2.0 license. > > Sorry Larry, but these are impractical suggestions wrt reviewing the > license submission and intent of the BSD + Patent License. The AFLv3 is GPL > incompatible because it contains contract provisions requiring distributors > to obtain the express assent of recipients to the license terms. The extra > restrictions making ASLv2 incompatible with GPLv2 have already been > discussed. Both are clearly documented cases of expressly incompatible > licenses by the GPL license steward the FSF. I understand your desire to > mention your disagreement with the license steward and discuss alternative > legal interpretations of what it means to be compatible with the GPL then > what might be generally accepted and used in practice. But it is offtopic > and not a very constructive discussion in the context of this license > submission, which doesn't contain any of those extra restrictions. > > Cheers, > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > License-review mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -- Simon Phipps*, Director, The Open Source Initiative* +44 238 098 7027 or +1 415 683 7660 : www.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
