Improving License Pages

Last modified by Unknown User on 2016.04.05 at 02:29:27 PDT

Improving License Pages

We are trying to collect information about our licenses so that we can improve the license page information and make them more useful for visitors.

A sample page might look like this once the information is added; alternately?

For more details of what this is about, see this thread projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-March/000925.html and http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-November/001336.html

Research tip! Many of the old discussions may be archived at dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general instead of the newer projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/

 

LicenseOfficial Homepage/FAQDiscussionCanonical .txt?Live?
Academic Free License 3.0 (AFL-3.0)http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htmRequest for approval
Adaptive Public License (APL-1.0)
several discussions, review on limiting price of distribution, threads from mail-archive (but many other places as well) ; Effects of new versions of the license

Apache License 2.0 (Apache-2.0)Apache licenses or Apache Licensing FAQhttp://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07045.htmlhttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
Apple Public Source License (APSL-2.0)http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/1547/match=apple+public+source+license Question on derived works.http://www.publicsource.apple.com/license/apsl/
Artistic license 2.0 (Artistic-2.0)http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_2_0_notesSubmissionhttp://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
Attribution Assurance Licenses (AAL)



BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (BSD-3-Clause)



BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" License (BSD-2-Clause)
Submission

Boost Software License (BSL-1.0)http://www.boost.org/users/license.html(Informal) submission, Submissionhttp://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1 (CATOSL-1.1)



Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 (CDDL-1.0)



Cea Cnrs Inria Logiciel Libre License, version 2.1 (CECILL-2.1)
Questions

Common Public Attribution License 1.0 (CPAL-1.0)
Submission, Approval

CUA Office Public License Version 1.0 (CUA-OPL-1.0)
Submission

EU DataGrid Software License (EUDatagrid)
Submission Discussion

Eclipse Public License 1.0 (EPL-1.0)EPL FAQhttp://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07323.html (is there a better one?)http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
Educational Community License, Version 2.0 (ECL-2.0)
Initial request for approval, Resubmission

Eiffel Forum License V2.0 (EFL-2.0)



Entessa Public License (Entessa)
Approval request

European Union Public License, Version 1.1 (EUPL-1.1)
Answers about EUPL, EUPL 1.2 (not approved?)

Fair License (Fair)
Request for comments, Board report

Frameworx License (Frameworx-1.0)



GNU Affero General Public License v3 (AGPL-3.0)How to use GNU licensesFormal submissionhttp://gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt
GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPL-2.0)How to use GNU licenses
http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPL-3.0)How to use GNU licensesSubmission, Reviewhttp://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License version 2.1 (LGPL-2.1)How to use GNU licenses
http://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License version 3.0 (LGPL-3.0)
Submission, Reviewhttp://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt
Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer (HPND)
Submission (2002)

IBM Public License 1.0 (IPL-1.0)



IPA Font License (IPA)
Submission

ISC License (ISC)http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/Legacy approvalhttp://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
LaTeX Project Public License 1.3c (LPPL-1.3c)



Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (LPL-1.02)
initial submission 1.02

MirOS Licence (MirOS)
initial discussion, Request, Resubmission

Microsoft Public License (MS-PL)
Submission

Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL)
Submission

MIT license (MIT)



Motosoto License (Motosoto)



Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0)https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2011-December/thread.htmlhttps://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/index.txt
Multics License (Multics)
Request for approval

NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 (NASA-1.3)NOSAApproval discussion (there are others); Disputed "original works" inclusion - discussion.NOSA 1.3
NTP License (NTP)
Legacy approval

Naumen Public License (Naumen)



Nethack General Public License (NGPL)



Nokia Open Source License (Nokia)



Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 (NPOSL-3.0)http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdfSubmission

OCLC Research Public License 2.0 (OCLC-2.0)
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/312

Open Font License 1.1 (OFL-1.1)
Submission

Open Group Test Suite License (OGTSL)



Open Software License 3.0 (OSL-3.0)http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htmDraft, Attribution, Request for approval

PHP License 3.0 (PHP-3.0)
Submission

The PostgreSQL License (PostgreSQL)
Initial (informal) request

Python License (Python-2.0)



CNRI Python license (CNRI-Python)



Q Public License (QPL-1.0)



RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 (RPSL-1.0)
Submission

Reciprocal Public License 1.5 (RPL-1.5)
Submission of 1.5 update, Discussion of 1.5 update

Ricoh Source Code Public License (RSCPL)



Simple Public License 2.0 (SimPL-2.0)
Initial (1.0) submission

Sleepycat License (Sleepycat)



Sun Public License 1.0 (SPL-1.0)



Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 (Watcom-1.0)



University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License (NCSA)



Vovida Software License v. 1.0 (VSL-1.0)



W3C License (W3C)
Forwarded request

wxWindows Library License (WXwindows)



X.Net License (Xnet)



Zope Public License 2.0 (ZPL-2.0)



zlib/libpng license (Zlib)



 

Superceded licenses

Retired or superseded. Full help list: http://opensource.org/licenses/do-not-use

OSL 3.0 - Informing licensees of their rights

Not approved submissions (in progress drafts, abandoned process, rejected, withdrawn)

Moved to Discussions on not approved licenses page.

(Several) License Committee Reports

Simple, random list of old license committee reports or its precedessor. Please note: these were not "mined" to update the other license information list(s). Pre- and including 2005.

Questions from comments and mail archives

A previous iteration of this page involved cleaning out old comments from licenses. This preserves some comments that should be later transformed into FAQs or otherwise handled, and adds questions of interest from mailing list archives.

Questions Luis Has Not Yet Reviewed

From the mailing list archive

Was this submission of Zope 2.1 answered or approved? The version listed on OSI site is 2.0. The difference is trivial, it makes the text into a template for other copyright holders.

Was this request answered? The license listed is wxWindows. The difference is license name change to wxWidgets.

Was this W3C update answered? The W3C license listed is still the former version. Note: trivial changes, but also removal of "permission to use".

License compatibility matrix, http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07684.html

Python License 2.1 - FOR APPROVAL: The Python Software Foundation License (PSF License). Current version on OSI site is 2.0.

Python licenses: an informational thread on the current three licenses governing the code The Python licensing situation.

EUPL 1.2 (not approved?)

Other kind of questions (that the FAQ should address with its copyleft notes)

MIT question

>The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Then why does Wikipedia state (unreferenced) this license is NOT copyleft? Does Wikipedia need fixing? Is there a reliable source about this?

Another MIT question

If I obtain code under the MIT license, then make changes to it. Can I sub-license it under my own terms? Or do I have to still include their original MIT license with my software. Basically I'm creating software that contains MIT licensed code, but I want to sell it with my own sub-license for the end users so they can't redistribute it for free.

We get this question a lot. Maybe this FAQ item should be expanded to address it?

Questions Luis Has Reviewed But Not Yet Taken Action On

Note: in above cases, I find interesting the existence of the questions. 'Reciprocical', 'permissive', and sub-categories, may be of potential interest help for pages with license categories, descriptions, basic differentiation, which would serve the purpose to ease choice of license. [Yes, I think this, or something like it, is on our radar. Good to hear our suspicions confirmed, though! –Luis]

Questions Luis Has Reviewed And Taken Action On

OSL 3.0 question

We´re searching for an easy-to-understand overview of OSL and GPL - with the main differences, advantages and disadvantages of each. Does anyone know such a document? There are some new software-tools published under OSL and nobody knows what this really mean.

(I think the question, in the form it's asked, is too much to address. And the license explanation is (currently) linked, that should help. So I'd suggest removal for this too.)(I agree and have hidden it. That said, we should consider adding links to "canonical" license explanations to every license. See forthcoming email to license-discuss. –Luis)

ISC comment

The original ISC license said "and distribute." My understanding is that this addition was requested by rms for approval by the FSF, (I believe the issue was related to Pine, and the interpretation UW used). OpenBSD does not use and/or, but instead uses the ISC license before this was modified. I think it should be clarified that the OpenBSD usage is a valid variation of the ISC License.

I'd bring it to your attention, because if there is indeed an issue here, then I think it would be worth to clarify valid variations. (Good find. Email sent to the mailing list about this. –Luis)

MIT question

May I enquire as to what specific forms are permissable to meet the "…The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software…" requirement? For example, does the notice need to appear within an application's user interface somewhere? If so, does it matter where? If not, how specifically does it need to be incorporated? Embedded within any file? Only a separate file? What about a a phone app, where this would be impractical? What about a hardware product where the code is compiled into firmware and there is no practical or desirable way of displaying the notice? Thanks in advance!

Note: the question how to apply a license isn't unique. (And is addressed in our FAQ, fwiw. -Karl) (Agreed that it is already in the FAQ, so have hidden. But if someone wants to suggest enhancement to the existing FAQ question based on this reading- go for it! -Luis)

Tags:
Created by Patrick Masson on 2013.11.29 at 10:47:51 PST
    

Submit feedback regarding this wiki to webmaster@opensource.org

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license
XWiki Enterprise 7.4.2 - Documentation