Yesterday on IRC a handle of substantive topics were discussed.
While it's not clear that any decisions have been taken, the issues
raised seem worthy of HBR disclosure.
tmarble discussed the "transitive grace period" mail from Zooko
- noted Zooko brought this up before on debian-legal
- expressed uncertainty of downstream licensors could
"take advantage" of §2 to effectively withhold CCS to
derived works for up to a year.
- §2 does apply to downstream licensors
- there is potential for confusion between various grace periods
(and maybe even a potential for hucksterism)
The group discussed the problematic nature of defining "proprietary" software
as not meeting the OSD (too much room for interpretation, lobbying).
Fontana considers going back to "OSI Approved".
tmarble expressed concern that TPL or TGPPL like terms may introduce
vulnerabilities to copyleft-next. Perhaps a permissive license is
better suited to that audience?
The group was discussing EPL compatibility when mlinksva mentioned
another Rich Hickey license. The license in question is the
"Datomic Free Edition License"
Despite the title this is a virally non-free license.
Interestingly mlinksva points out that large sections of that
license are copied verbatim from CC-by-nd 3.0.
tmarble brought up the issue of *Sui Generis* database rights
and mlinksva stated that he has some pending comments on this topic
which are apropos to copyleft-next (for use with licensing data).
mlinksva commented on how long and complex the new OSM ODbL license is:
warp mentions that coverage of database rights for Europe would be welcome.