Switch to free software license?

[leif81]

I thought I'd revive this discussion here so the details aren't lost.

Several years back the OpenMap license was evaluated and found to be non-free. 😢 As far as I can tell the license hasn't changed since then so I assuming this assessment holds.

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:24:40 -0400
From: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@redhat.com>

On 04/26/2010 04:27 PM, Leif Gruenwoldt wrote:
> Hi, is this license free enough to have OpenMap packaged for Fedora?
> 
> http://openmap.bbn.com/license.html

Unfortunately, that license is non-free. It has the same basic problems
as the Artistic 1.0 license.

~spot

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HDK5M2RMNPINLYF4H7L4AZCI7DFUJPZU/

[leif81]

Btw, here's an email chain between @dfdietrick and I that contained a bit more info and what the ideas for tackling this were at the time.

From: Don Dietrick <dfdietrick@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:10:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] openmap license
To: Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com>

I've forwarded our conversation to my friends at BBN, the ones that
are open to the license change.  I'll continue to bring this up to
them, too.  BBN and I are going through this little thing, sorting out
our relationship, so this is probably a good time for them to look at
updating the license.

- Don

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> I'm glad to hear there is interest.
>
> You could propose that if BBN were to switch to an OSI approved
> license they could then put an OSI icon on the OpenMap page which adds
> credibility to the project.
>
> http://www.opensource.org/trademarks/opensource/OSI-Approved-License-100x=
137.png
>
> As a developer choosing a library, when I see that OSI icon I can
> comfortably know that it the project is safe to use. Otherwise I need
> a lawyer to help read and approve the license terms (which usually is
> not a realistic option). For my group this has been one of the
> stumbling blocks of adopting the use of OpenMap as our GIS.
>
> In the long run this could mean more OpenMap users which would mean
> more bugs get noticed and fixed leading to a better product.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Don Dietrick <dfdietrick@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>> Hi Leif,
>>
>> I've talked with BBN about this, and we've all agreed that the
>> Artistic License 2.0 was what we were going for back in 1998, before
>> v2.0 existed. =A0The problem is getting BBN to modify their license.
>> It's more a matter of getting it through legal approval, and whether
>> that effort would be worth it to them based on the slight differences
>> between the two licenses.
>>
>> I'd like to see it change, and I'll keep bringing it up to them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>> Hey Don, just to follow up on our previous conversation.
>>>
>>> Would the Artistic License 2.0 satisfy the needs of the OpenMap project=
?
>>>
>>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0
>>>
>>> This would allow OpenMap to be recognized as free software by both the
>>> Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI).
>>>
>>> This would allow the OpenMap and software that uses it to be packaged
>>> on Fedora and Ubuntu. A great day that would be!
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>>>> Hi Don,
>>>>
>>>> I did some digging. So OpenMap license is considered non free because
>>>> it is derived from the Artistic 1.0 license which itself is considered
>>>> non-free. Explanation from wikipedia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> " It was criticized by the Free Software Foundation as being "too
>>>> vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their
>>>> meaning is not clear." "
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License#Artistic_License_1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All hope is not lost though. I continued reading and apparently
>>>> someone has addressed this shortcoming with an updated form of the
>>>> license called "Clarified Artistic License" . This license is
>>>> considered free by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ArtisticClarified
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If OpenMap were to adopt this or another free license
>>>> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses) then the
>>>> doors would open to getting OpenMap into Fedora with the other great
>>>> free GIS software.
>>>>
>>>> Please keep me in touch, especially if you decide to change to a free
>>>> license. Once the license issues are resolved I can handle the next
>>>> step which is getting OpenMap packaged and into Fedora.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Don Dietrick <dfdietrick@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>> Hi Leif,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that BBN hasn't thought about changing the license.
>>>>> However, I'd be interested in understanding why the license is
>>>>> considered by some to be non-free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>>> One day I would like to see OpenMap packaged and distributed with
>>>>>> other free GIS software on Fedora. However currently OpenMap uses a
>>>>>> non-free license restricting this from happening. Has any
>>>>>> consideration gone into changing the OpenMap license? This would ope=
n
>>>>>> up OpenMap to many new developers and expand the community
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leif Gruenwoldt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] openmap license
>>>>>> To: Leif Gruenwoldt <leifer@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: fedora-legal-list@redhat.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/26/2010 04:27 PM, Leif Gruenwoldt wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, is this license free enough to have OpenMap packaged for Fedora=
?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://openmap.bbn.com/license.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, that license is non-free. It has the same basic probl=
ems
>>>>>> as the Artistic 1.0 license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~spot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>