Subject: RE: pruning "dead" licenses
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:33 -0800

Why are we talking about pruning the NPL? It isn't even on the OSI list. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen 
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 
email: lrosen@rosenlaw.com 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitchell Baker [mailto:Mitchell@mozilla.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:12 PM
> To: Ernest Prabhakar
> Cc: Russell Nelson; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: pruning "dead" licenses
> 
> 
> 
> Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> 
> >
> > From this perspective, I would vote for categorizing licenses into
> > "Active" vs "Legacy". I would also support an additional annotation
> > of "Reusable" to indicate licenses which people should consider for
> > (b).  For example, the MPL is designed to be reusable whereas the NPL
> > was not (and may well be Legacy).
> >
> Yes, I believe the NPL is  a Legacy license at best. The Mozilla project
> doesn't use it.
> The MPL doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the list.  It is used by a
> range of open source projects, so this seems a notable omission.
> 
> Mitchell
> 
> >
> > This is a list of currently active OSI  Certified licenses. See our
> > <Legacy license page> for a list of licenses the OSI believes are no
> > longer in active use.
> >
> > I.  Reusable Licenses
> >
> > The following OSI  Certified licenses are designed for you to use with
> > code you write and want to release under an open source license.
> >
> > BSD
> > GPL v3
> > OSL
> > AFL
> > CPL
> > ....
> >
> > II.  Consumable Licenses
> >
> > The following OSI  Certified licenses also fully conform to the Open
> > Source Definition, but  were written for use by a particular copyright
> > owner.  In generally, you will not want to release your own code under
> > these licenses unless you have a direct relationship with the author
> > of the license.  However, you can use code released by others under
> > this license with the confidence that they conform to the values of
> > the Open Source Definition.
> >
> > Apache Public License 2.0
> > Apple Public Source License 2.0
> > ...
> >
> > [separate page]
> >
> > III.  Legacy Licenses
> >
> > The following licenses have been superseded, or are otherwise
> > deprecated, though they still have been certified as conforming to the
> > Open Source Definition.   In general, if you find software using a
> > license on this list you should check to see if you can instead
> > license it under an <active open source license> (since most open
> > source licenses allow end-users to relicense software under a newer
> > version of that license).
> >
> > GPL v1, v2
> > BSD w/advertising clause
> > APSL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
> > Netscape Public License
> >
> >
> >
> >