LAtkinson's blog

In May, the License-Review mailing list saw extensive debate on the Cryptographic Autonomy License. The list also discussed a BSD variant used by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Master-Console license.

In May, the License-Discuss mailing list talked about:

• relationship between the License-Review mailing list and the License Comittee
• evolution of the license review process
• comprehensiveness of the approved license list
• licenses of licenses
• would three licenses be enough?
• email threading

In April, the License-Review mailing list saw extensive debate on the Cryptographic Autonomy License, in particular:

• its user data clause, and how it affects user freedom
• obligations placed on the software operator
• API copyright
• strategic concerns for the OSI
• public performance rights for software

In April, the License-Discuss mailing list:

• talked about non-commercial licensing
• discussed license revocability
• answered a question about LGPL/Apache compatibility

In March, the License-Review mailing list saw the retraction of the SSPL from review, and discussed a set of GPLv3 Additional Terms.

The License-Discuss list (summarized at https://opensource.org/LicenseDiscuss032019) was far more active. Among other things, it discussed Van Lindberg's upcoming Cryptographic Autonomy License, and saw extensive discussion about the license review process: whether the conduct of the list is appropriate, whether there might be alternatives to using email, and whether PEP-style summaries would help.

In March, the License-Discuss mailing list discussed:

• the Cryptographic Autonomy License
  • its interactions with the GDPR
  • how public performance applies to software
• the License-Review process
  • views on tone and conduct on the list
  • the list's role in the license review process
  • problems with email, and alternative tools
  • whether a PEP-style process might help
• whether licenses should be drafted without legal assistance
• and more

In February, the License-Review mailing list discussed:

• Convertible Free Software License (C-FSL)
• Twente License
• Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)
• Review process, governance, and the OSD

In February, the License-Discuss mailing list discussed how to keep the mailing lists civil and to what degree the business model of a license submitter should be relevant.

In January, the License-Review mailing list discussed:

• the new license review process
• Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)
• Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.3 (C-FSL v1.3)
  • What are the problems with Original Authors?
  • How is the C-FSL different from CLAs or permissive licenses?
  • Why is the publication requirement a problem?
  • Can the C-FSL be OSI-approved?
• Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.4 (C-FSL v1.4)

In January, the License-Discuss mailing list discussed:

• the opensource.dev info site
• Open Data
• “intimacy” in Open Source licenses
  • process and interface boundaries
  • corresponding Source
  • is it a problem that the FSF introduced a new word?
  • making sense of the law, and bright lines
  • licensor expectations
• relicensing and maintainer–community dynamics
• VanL's upcoming copyleft license