[tlug] RE: Tlug Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

[stephen@example.com]

burlingk@example.com writes:

 > I am looking over OSL 3 now.  I just came to paragraph 9.  They have
 > added in extra verbiage stating that if you distribute the code, you
 > must make "a reasonable effort" to gain explicit acceptance of the
 > license. [1]  Big change from the previous traditional, "If you use it,
 > you accept the license" type wording.

Right.  I'm not sure of the wisdom of doing that.  The motivation is
to ensure that the license can be enforced under contract law, but
since that enforcement requires participation of the distributor (the
OSL is sublicensable and, unlike the GPL, contains no wording saying
that the license is from the original vendor), the point is moot.
We'd have to ask Larry about that, though.

I'm pretty sure that requiring that the downloader change a radio
button from "don't accept" to "accept" would be considered "reasonable
effort", though.

 > That wording [about the copyright on the license text] brings up
 > another question though, if you write your own license, then say it
 > is Open Source, does OSI get agitated if you don't run it past them
 > first?

Mildly agitated, yes.  In practice if they catch you at it they'll
complain pro forma once, review the license, and either approve it or
not.

The term "Open Source License" was trademarked at one time; you
couldn't use it without their permission.  They screwed up and failed
to renew, so it fell into the public domain AIUI.  So now they use the
term "OSI-certified".  Legally they can't stop you from calling
something "an open source license", but they will get on your case for
it if they don't approve it, and you might very well be liable for
deceptive advertising if you call something "open source" but the OSI
explicitly decertified your license.  (The OSI has no standing in that
case, but the FTC does.)