|
List Info
Thread: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT licenses
|
|
| Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-09-30 19:07:16 |
|
I have heard a position mentioned that a project is only "open source" if it uses an OSI approved license. I am wondering what this means relating to BSD-style licenses in particular. For example, is it the OSI's position that every BSD variant approved by the University of California other than the specific template listed on the web site is unapproved?
Would OSI's position be that projects using unapproved variants on these licenses for historical reasons (PostgreSQL for example uses an old-style BSD license with the advertising clause dropped) are not open source?
Best Wishes
Chris Travers
|
| Re: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-10-01 01:14:25 |
"Chris Travers" <chris.travers gmail.com> writes:
> Would OSI's position be that projects using unapproved
variants on these
> licenses for historical reasons (PostgreSQL for example
uses an old-style
> BSD license with the advertising clause dropped) are
not open source?
How about doing your own homework? The "old-style BSD
license with
the advertising clause dropped" is OSI-approved (under
the name "New
BSD license"). So is the MIT license.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no
|
|
| Re: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-10-01 12:19:19 |
Chris Travers wrote:
> I have heard a position mentioned that a project is
only "open source" if it
> uses an OSI approved license.
Sure-- for example, some open source software development
systems like
SourceForge hold that position, at least with regard to
which projects they
are willing to host.
To me, whether a project is "open source" depends
on whether its license is
substantially compatible [1] with the OSI Open Source
Definition; whether it
has actually gone through the approval process is not
essential.
> I am wondering what this means relating to
> BSD-style licenses in particular. For example, is it
the OSI's position
> that every BSD variant approved by the University of
California other than
> the specific template listed on the web site is
unapproved?
I don't believe the OSI board has taken such a position,
no.
> Would OSI's position be that projects using unapproved
variants on these
> licenses for historical reasons (PostgreSQL for example
uses an old-style
> BSD license with the advertising clause dropped) are
not open source?
That would be a silly position to take even if the 3-clause
or "new" BSD
license wasn't already approved. Postgres is a fine
database under an open
and permissive license; whether it has the OSI logo appear
somewhere or not is
not a significant concern IMO....
--
-Chuck
[1]: I mention "substantially" because the OSD did
not appear as perfect ab
initio and has improved over time; some licenses which were
approved earlier
might not pass a review today.
|
|
| Re: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-10-01 16:23:50 |
|
So am I right then that the OSI's position is that every possible wording of the MIT, BSD, and similar licenses do not need to be approved for people to claim that a project is Open Source? I.e. that meeting the OSD is what is important, not having the specific wording approved?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
|
| RE: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-10-01 23:31:19 |
|
Unless the OSI has
registered the terms “open sourceR21; as a protected trademark
requiring such approval, the only thing protected is the OSI compliance logo
and the declaration of compliance or approval by OSI. I don’t think that “open
source” is protected, just because OSI has initiated a process to verify
these assertions, simply because the terms pre-existed and was used long before
OSI started its campaign. We’ve seen the terms “open sourceR21;
(with or without hyphen, with or without capitals) used since the early time of
BSD and MIT or FSF licences, or even in sources donated to the “public
domain”.
These past claims remain
valid and OSI cannot become the exclusive owner of these terms. What makes the
OSI approval important is the fact that the approval is recognized by other
companies or sites (like SourceFourge) as offering a good protection for those
sites against possible copyright infringement claims (so the policy of these
third-party sites includes some requirement such as the OSI approval for ensuring
the compatibility of the hosted projects using these licences).
De : Chris Travers
[mailto:chris.traversgmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi 1 octobre 2007
23:24
À : License Discuss
Objet ;: Re: Question on OSI
position on BSD/MIT licenses
So am I right then that the OSI's position is that every possible
wording of the MIT, BSD, and similar licenses do not need to be approved for
people to claim that a project is Open Source? I.e. that meeting the OSD
is what is important, not having the specific wording approved?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
|
| Re: Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT
licenses |
|
2007-10-05 17:49:06 |
Chris Travers wrote:
> So am I right then that the OSI's position is that
every possible wording of
> the MIT, BSD, and similar licenses do not need to be
approved for people to
> claim that a project is Open Source?
What's most important is whether the license is
OSD-compliant. However,
that's sometimes in dispute, so OSI strongly encourages
people to seek
approval of the license before calling it Open Source.
Permissive
licenses tend to be more obviously OSD-compliant, so it's
not as much of
an issue for them.
Matt Flaschen
|
|
[1-6]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|