Re: Standardized source header

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standardized source header

Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)
Steve,
the difference between the two licenses can be seen here:

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=MapServer_Provenance_Review&diff=22575&oldid=22574

The relevant bit is:

MIT:
"all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

MapServer:
"all copies of this Software or works derived from this Software."

I don't see a real problem but I would still suggest that while you are at
it you might want to decide to change your standard header for the OSI
certified one.


Regards,
Arnulf.

>>>> Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> 02/08/08 2:44 AM >>>
> Steve Lime wrote:
[...]
>> I don't see how OSI certification impacts this at all. I believe that,
>> way back, Tom Burk submitted the  MapServer  license to them for
>> approval but never received a response...
>

One of the common goals of FSF and OSI is to prevent proliferation of
licenses. OSGeo says this about licensing (maybe this needs to be changed
a bit):
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html

"The foundation's projects are all freely available and useable under an
OSI-certified open source license." Open Source Initiative (tm) Logo


But on the Open Source org page it says: The logo "Open Source Initiative
(tm)" may only be used by projects that use one of the approved licenses.

Search this page for logo to read about usage:
http://opensource.org/faq

I should have noticed this earlier. This has probably no relevance as long
as OSGeo is not the Copyright owner. On the other hand OSGeo wants to be a
common roof and wears the OSI trademark on the web. Any comments?

Regards, Arnulf.


--
Arnulf Benno Christl
http://www.osgeo.org
(OSGeo Board Member)
+50.7342N   +7.0707E


_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standardized source header

Steve Lime
I've pinged Tom on the reasons behind the difference. I can see why it was wanted though since "substantial" is
sufficiently vague. Now, to change we'd need confirmation from all contributors that we can reasonably track
down correct?

Steve

>>> On 2/11/2008 at 11:56 AM, in message
<[hidden email]>, "Arnulf Christl
(OSGeo)" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steve,
> the difference between the two licenses can be seen here:
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=MapServer_Provenance_Review&diff=22575&o 
> ldid=22574
>
> The relevant bit is:
>
> MIT:
> "all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>
> MapServer:
> "all copies of this Software or works derived from this Software."
>
> I don't see a real problem but I would still suggest that while you are at
> it you might want to decide to change your standard header for the OSI
> certified one.
>
>
> Regards,
> Arnulf.
>
>>>>> Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> 02/08/08 2:44 AM >>>
>> Steve Lime wrote:
> [...]
>>> I don't see how OSI certification impacts this at all. I believe that,
>>> way back, Tom Burk submitted the  MapServer  license to them for
>>> approval but never received a response...
>>
>
> One of the common goals of FSF and OSI is to prevent proliferation of
> licenses. OSGeo says this about licensing (maybe this needs to be changed
> a bit):
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html 
>
> "The foundation's projects are all freely available and useable under an
> OSI-certified open source license." Open Source Initiative (tm) Logo
>
>
> But on the Open Source org page it says: The logo "Open Source Initiative
> (tm)" may only be used by projects that use one of the approved licenses.
>
> Search this page for logo to read about usage:
> http://opensource.org/faq 
>
> I should have noticed this earlier. This has probably no relevance as long
> as OSGeo is not the Copyright owner. On the other hand OSGeo wants to be a
> common roof and wears the OSI trademark on the web. Any comments?
>
> Regards, Arnulf.
>

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standardized source header

Perry Nacionales
What about just applying for approval or clarification from OSI.  It's
clear that the MapServer license can be considered as redundant with the
MIT license...  It might be that all that is needed is OSI recognizing
this as the case and that by virtue of being redundant is also approved
but classified as MIT-type license.

Here's a link to OSI's license review process:
http://www.opensource.org/approval

The relevant section for MapServer is "Legacy Approval":


      For Legacy Approval


        By: License Steward or Interested Licensee

Retroactive approval of historic/legacy licenses that have already been
extensively used by an existing community, but have not previously been
approved.

    * Recommend which license proliferation category
      <https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/help/proliferation> is appropriate
    * Requires less justification than Approval of a new license



Cheers!
-Perry

Steve Lime wrote:

> I've pinged Tom on the reasons behind the difference. I can see why it was wanted though since "substantial" is
> sufficiently vague. Now, to change we'd need confirmation from all contributors that we can reasonably track
> down correct?
>
> Steve
>
>  
>>>> On 2/11/2008 at 11:56 AM, in message
>>>>        
> <[hidden email]>, "Arnulf Christl
> (OSGeo)" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Steve,
>> the difference between the two licenses can be seen here:
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=MapServer_Provenance_Review&diff=22575&o 
>> ldid=22574
>>
>> The relevant bit is:
>>
>> MIT:
>> "all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>>
>> MapServer:
>> "all copies of this Software or works derived from this Software."
>>
>> I don't see a real problem but I would still suggest that while you are at
>> it you might want to decide to change your standard header for the OSI
>> certified one.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>>    
>>>>>> Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> 02/08/08 2:44 AM >>>
>>>>>>            
>>> Steve Lime wrote:
>>>      
>> [...]
>>    
>>>> I don't see how OSI certification impacts this at all. I believe that,
>>>> way back, Tom Burk submitted the  MapServer  license to them for
>>>> approval but never received a response...
>>>>        
>> One of the common goals of FSF and OSI is to prevent proliferation of
>> licenses. OSGeo says this about licensing (maybe this needs to be changed
>> a bit):
>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html 
>>
>> "The foundation's projects are all freely available and useable under an
>> OSI-certified open source license." Open Source Initiative (tm) Logo
>>
>>
>> But on the Open Source org page it says: The logo "Open Source Initiative
>> (tm)" may only be used by projects that use one of the approved licenses.
>>
>> Search this page for logo to read about usage:
>> http://opensource.org/faq 
>>
>> I should have noticed this earlier. This has probably no relevance as long
>> as OSGeo is not the Copyright owner. On the other hand OSGeo wants to be a
>> common roof and wears the OSI trademark on the web. Any comments?
>>
>> Regards, Arnulf.
>>
>>    
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>  

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standardized source header

Frank Warmerdam
Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:

> What about just applying for approval or clarification from OSI.  It's
> clear that the MapServer license can be considered as redundant with the
> MIT license...  It might be that all that is needed is OSI recognizing
> this as the case and that by virtue of being redundant is also approved
> but classified as MIT-type license.
>
> Here's a link to OSI's license review process:
> http://www.opensource.org/approval
>
> The relevant section for MapServer is "Legacy Approval":
>
>
>      For Legacy Approval
>
>
>        By: License Steward or Interested Licensee
>
> Retroactive approval of historic/legacy licenses that have already been
> extensively used by an existing community, but have not previously been
> approved.
>
>    * Recommend which license proliferation category
>      <https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/help/proliferation> is appropriate
>    * Requires less justification than Approval of a new license

Perry,

My understanding is that OSI doesn't really like approving additional licenses
and given their lassitude I am doubtful if they would get around to an
analysis and statement on ours.

If we could get the university to agree to the more standard text then
I think we would not run into problems from other committers and then we
could change it.  What are the chances of the university agreeing now?

Another possibility is for us to refer the issue to Heather Meeker to
comment on whether the different text has significant legal implications.
If she says not, then I we could proceed on the basis that this is not
meaningfully different from the OSI approved MIT license and just
document the issue.

The key seems to be whether "worked derived from" is additionally
restrictive in any meaningful way.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Standardized source header

Perry Nacionales
Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
>> What about just applying for approval or clarification from OSI.  
>> It's clear that the MapServer license can be considered as redundant
>> with the MIT license...  It might be that all that is needed is OSI
>> recognizing this as the case and that by virtue of being redundant is
>> also approved but classified as MIT-type license.
>>
>> Here's a link to OSI's license review process:
>> http://www.opensource.org/approval
>>
>> The relevant section for MapServer is "Legacy Approval":
>>
>>
>>      For Legacy Approval
>>
>>
>>        By: License Steward or Interested Licensee
>>
>> Retroactive approval of historic/legacy licenses that have already
>> been extensively used by an existing community, but have not
>> previously been approved.
>>
>>    * Recommend which license proliferation category
>>      <https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/help/proliferation> is appropriate
>>    * Requires less justification than Approval of a new license
>
> Perry,
>
> My understanding is that OSI doesn't really like approving additional
> licenses
> and given their lassitude I am doubtful if they would get around to an
> analysis and statement on ours.
>
> If we could get the university to agree to the more standard text then
> I think we would not run into problems from other committers and then we
> could change it.  What are the chances of the university agreeing now?
>
> Another possibility is for us to refer the issue to Heather Meeker to
> comment on whether the different text has significant legal implications.
> If she says not, then I we could proceed on the basis that this is not
> meaningfully different from the OSI approved MIT license and just
> document the issue.
>
> The key seems to be whether "worked derived from" is additionally
> restrictive in any meaningful way.
>
> Best regards,
Frank,

Agreed. I guess the real issue is whether the MapServer license can be
classified as an MIT-type license, as described in the "Licenses that
are redundant with more popular licenses" section of OSI License
Proliferation report.  This really just need to be clarified by the OSI
legal people.

As for changing the wording in the MapServer license, I guess that's up
for Steve and Tom to ask the legal people at the UMN.  I can see how the
two phrases could be such a big issue for lawyers... :)  Thank god I'm
not one.

-Perry

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev