Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Clash of the Open Standards 215

Rollie Hawk writes "Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Computer Associates (CA) may agree that some housework is needed with open source licensing, but they may not be able to reconcile their views on the best solution. CA has a couple of possible solutions in mind for its proposed Template License. This license will likely be based on either Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) its own Trusted Open Source License. OSI, which does not favor corporate-centered licensing, opposes such moves on a number of grounds. Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible. While acknowledging the problems with license proliferation, OSI prefers a solution involving stricter criteria (including that approved licenses must me non-duplicative, clear and understandable, and reusable) and is proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated." While there is no legal requirement for any open-source license to be approved by OSI, it is currently common practice for developers to get their license blessing from it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clash of the Open Standards

Comments Filter:
  • Re:more than two? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Antity-H ( 535635 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @09:37AM (#12211142) Homepage
    from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ :
    Academic Free License
    Adaptive Public License
    Apache Software License
    Apache License, 2.0
    Apple Public Source License
    Artistic license
    Attribution Assurance Licenses
    New BSD license
    Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1
    Common Development and Distribution License
    Common Public License 1.0
    CUA Office Public License Version 1.0
    EU DataGrid Software License
    Eclipse Public License
    Educational Community License
    Eiffel Forum License
    Eiffel Forum License V2.0
    Entessa Public License
    Fair License
    Frameworx License
    GNU General Public License (GPL)
    GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL)
    Lucent Public License (Plan9)
    Lucent Public License Version 1.02
    IBM Public License
    Intel Open Source License
    Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer
    Jabber Open Source License
    MIT license
    MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License)
    Motosoto License
    Mozilla Public License 1.0 (MPL)
    Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL)
    NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3
    Naumen Public License
    Nethack General Public License
    Nokia Open Source License
    OCLC Research Public License 2.0
    Open Group Test Suite License
    Open Software License
    PHP License
    Python license (CNRI Python License)
    Python Software Foundation License
    Qt Public License (QPL)
    RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0
    Reciprocal Public License
    Ricoh Source Code Public License
    Sleepycat License
    Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL)
    Sun Public License
    Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
    University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License
    Vovida Software License v. 1.0
    W3C License
    wxWindows Library License
    X.Net License
    Zope Public License
    zlib/libpng license
  • Re:more than two? (Score:4, Informative)

    by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @09:38AM (#12211155) Homepage Journal
    FWIW, anyone who needs a fairly reasonable list of licenses will find a reasonable collection, with related discussion, here [fsf.org].

    The OSI has a list of "approved" licenses here [opensource.org], but it's literally just a list (no explanation of the differences or analysis of their implications), and I get the impression the OSI is regretting approving so many of them, given most of them are incompatable with one another (some of them can be incompatable with themselves, depending on the precise circumstances!)

  • Re:Actual impact (Score:3, Informative)

    by foobsr ( 693224 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @09:51AM (#12211250) Homepage Journal
    Maybe a little more complicated, given that the FSF lists [fsf.org] some 80+ licenses, documentation related ones not included.

  • Re:GPL-compatible (Score:4, Informative)

    by eviltypeguy ( 521224 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @10:59AM (#12211822)
    Technically, it's the GPL that's incompatible with the CDDL, not the other way around. This is because the GPL states that the other code can't have any additional requirements basically.

    Just a technicality...
  • by Josh Triplett ( 874994 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @04:47PM (#12216444) Homepage
    Your proposed license is not an Open Source or Free Software license at all:

    Translation of messages and documentation in the English-language version to other languages is permitted. However, this permission-to-translate clause must be replaced in the translated version by a clause forbidding any further translation.

    From the Debian Free Software Guidelines, as well as the Open Source Definition:

    The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

    Your license does not permit specific kinds of modified works from being distributed under the same terms.

    I can understand the issue you are trying to solve: you don't want translations that don't come from the original, most likely because that would result in compounding errors due to mistranslation or limited translation. However, this is just one possible way that someone could make your program worse; they could also introduce bugs, security issues, standards-violations/extensions, or just features you don't like. Attempting to prevent people from making the program worse will also prevent people from exercising the right to create derivative works.

    A much better solution is to require that modified works are clearly labelled as modified, and not represented as the original. Licenses such as the GPL and the zlib license do exactly that. This way, people can still modify the program for any purpose, but they won't make you look bad in the process, only themselves.

    Another minor issue with your license is the fact that you require people to provide an offer for source code that is valid in perpetuity, without providing the alternative of just providing source code at the same time as providing the binary. This means that if someone ever provided a version of your program on their website, they would have to keep a copy of the source for that version indefinitely. This gets even worse if they distributed several versions.

    These are just a few symptoms of what happens when you attempt to write your own license rather than using a well-established Free Software / Open Source license.
  • by Kazriko ( 526976 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @05:30PM (#12216954)
    IANAL, but the problem with this is that once you say something is "Public Domain" you no longer have any say whatsoever in it. Those conditions would not need to be followed by anyone at all. Public Domain is Public Domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose without consulting you nor following any of your instructions on its use. I believe that includes the disclaimer.

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.