Thanks for the feedback. I would be one of the first to admit – the OpenChain spec definition of Open Source Software is a poor one. Actually the idea that the definition of Open Source software is determined by the whether the software is available under an open source license is sound. The problem of lies with the definition of what an “open source license” is. We have tried to come up with a more formal definition but it was challenging to obtain community consensus. That does not mean we should not keep trying to do better.
>> Probably this question have a simple answer based on US industry practice,
>> but for those that we are little far from that perspective it would be really
>> helpful to understand the rationale behind the term "similar licenses".
There are many other licenses that have not been blessed by the OSI and FSF yet are understood to be open source licenses by their common acceptance. For instance, to name a few:
Apple MIT License
BSD 2-Clause NetBSD License
Creative common licenses, e.g.:
FSF Unlimited License
Open Government Licence v3.0
>> So, very respectfully, if the mission of section 2 would be to provide "definitions"
>> to be used in the specification, do not you think that the term "similar licenses"
>> should be defined?
I agree a definition for "similar licenses" would be beneficial but not easily obtainable (via consensus). A desirable long term solution is to come up with a simple yet general definition that covers the OSI, FSF and similar licenses. If there is sufficient interested I can re-initiate the discussion with the understanding we are unlikely to obtain closure for the version 2.0 release and that we could run into a wall again.
Many thanks for sending the links below.
I have reviewed both, and from the mark up version, and without the intention to re-opened past discussion that you probably may had, so, apologies in advance, I would like to ask you about "Section 2 Definitions" and the meaning of "similar licenses". The "Update change log" section 0) states: Standardized on the term Open Source. The previous specification uses both terms “Open Source” and the “FOSS (Free and Open Source)” interchangeable. It was acknowledged that the term Open Source is more widely recognized and understood for the following reasons: i) Some users of current the specification have pointed out there was confusion between the term OpenSource Software and FOSS. This was particularly true for first time readers; ii) Open Source represents a superset (inclusive); iii) The large majority of major foundations use the de facto term Open Source (e.g., Apache, Eclipse, OSI, Linux, OpenStack, Cloud Foundry, …); iv) Most commercial organizations externally use the de facto term Open Source; v) It is also consistent with the term “Open Source Program Office” which represents a major target audience of the specification; vi) The term Open Source is de facto in Asia, largely used in North America and mixed yet dominant in Europe; Translations would be simplified by the use of a single term;
In other hand, section 2, Definitions, Draft version 2.0 states:
Open Source Software (Open Source) FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) - software subject to one or more licenses that meet the Open Source Definition published by the Open Source Initiative (OpenSource.org) or the Free Software Definition (published by the Free Software Foundation) or similar license.
I am aware that the expression "or similar license" was not changed from the version 1.2, and being the only change the deletion of the term "FOSS (Free Open Source Software)", (that´s why my apologies in advance above).
Therefore, what would be the right meaning according to section 2 for "similar licenses" to software subject to one or more licenses that meet the Open Source Definition published by the Open Source Initiative (OpenSource.org) or the Free Software Definition (published by the Free Software Foundation). Would it cover software subject to licenses not submitted to OSI but that could possible meet the OSI standard? or maybe software subject to licenses not listed by FSF but probably respectful to the four/five freedoms?
Probably this question have a simple answer based on US industry practice, but for those that we are little far from that perspective it would be really helpful to understand the rationale behind the term "similar licenses".
So, very respectfully, if the mission of section 2 would be to provide "definitions" to be used in the specification, do not you think that the term "similar licenses" should be defined?.
Many thanks in advance,
Gustavo G. Mármol Alioto.
On 03-02-2019 16:22, Gisi, Mark wrote:
The latest draft of the next version of OpenChain Specification can be found here:
A marked up version can be found here:
The introduction was rewritten to be more concise and up to date.
We will discuss the Introduction rewrite in the upcoming working group meeting. After that we will circulate the draft for final input from the OpenChain community before sending it out for wider public review.
Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source
OpenChain mailing list