Details

    • Type: Question Question
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We've talked about it, but don't have it on the license list yet:

      http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm

        Activity

        Henri Yandell created issue -
        Hide
        Henri Yandell added a comment -

        Archive: http://markmail.org/message/wvxt7qpqdtl5aalo

        Reading the history of the thread, it seems that OSL is either category B or category X. The only issue being:

        "If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. "

        The same thing applies to AFL 3.0, which we've added to our category A list already (we can relicense AFL under AL 2.0, as long as AL 2.0 doesn't contradict AFL 3.0).

        So the question becomes: "Is not being prepared to set up a click through website a reasonable circumstance?"

        We make he reasonable effort of including the license terms in the download, but the circumstance is our own dislike for enforcing a clickthrough licensing policy on all of our mirrors (and our own servers). Given that we've been doing that for years, I do think that that is reasonable. It would not be reasonable to change our policies and technologies to fulfill this clause.

        Any +1s for this being on category B?

        Show
        Henri Yandell added a comment - Archive: http://markmail.org/message/wvxt7qpqdtl5aalo Reading the history of the thread, it seems that OSL is either category B or category X. The only issue being: "If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. " The same thing applies to AFL 3.0, which we've added to our category A list already (we can relicense AFL under AL 2.0, as long as AL 2.0 doesn't contradict AFL 3.0). So the question becomes: "Is not being prepared to set up a click through website a reasonable circumstance?" We make he reasonable effort of including the license terms in the download, but the circumstance is our own dislike for enforcing a clickthrough licensing policy on all of our mirrors (and our own servers). Given that we've been doing that for years, I do think that that is reasonable. It would not be reasonable to change our policies and technologies to fulfill this clause. Any +1s for this being on category B?
        Hide
        Henri Yandell added a comment -

        Added as category B. Please reopen if any disagreement.

        Show
        Henri Yandell added a comment - Added as category B. Please reopen if any disagreement.
        Henri Yandell made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Status Open [ 1 ] Closed [ 6 ]
        Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
        Hide
        Jukka Zitting added a comment -

        Thanks for the followup! Much appreciated.

        Show
        Jukka Zitting added a comment - Thanks for the followup! Much appreciated.
        Transition Time In Source Status Execution Times Last Executer Last Execution Date
        Open Open Closed Closed
        13d 19h 59m 1 Henri Yandell 12/Jul/08 23:41

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Henri Yandell
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development