sparse licensing query

sparse licensing query

[David Given]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 827 bytes --]

I'm just putting together some documentation in preparation for a proper
release of Clue, and have been doing some license paperwork (I want to
properly attribute sparse). I notice that the LICENSE documentation
refers to the OSL v1.1 (and provides a dead link to www.opensource.com).

Given that the OSL is now at v3.0, does sparse use OSL v1.1 on purpose
or simply that nobody got round to updating it?

(I also note, purely for informational value, that no version of the OSL
is DSFG compatible.)

-- 
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
│ telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
│ how to use my telephone." --- Bjarne Stroustrup


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: sparse licensing query

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 00:02 +0100, David Given wrote:
> I'm just putting together some documentation in preparation for a proper
> release of Clue, and have been doing some license paperwork (I want to
> properly attribute sparse). I notice that the LICENSE documentation
> refers to the OSL v1.1 (and provides a dead link to www.opensource.com).
> 
> Given that the OSL is now at v3.0, does sparse use OSL v1.1 on purpose
> or simply that nobody got round to updating it?

For the same reason that most of Linux uses GPLv2 without the "or any
later version" clause: because developers didn't want automatic upgrades
to new licenses without the chance to read them or approve of them.

> (I also note, purely for informational value, that no version of the OSL
> is DSFG compatible.)

And for that matter, all versions of the OSL have incompatibilities with
the GPL.  The sparse FAQ notes that that occurred intentionally, and
motivated the original choice of license.

TTBOMK, newer versions of the OSL seem sufficiently less egregious that
Debian has accepted them.  I think Debian primarily objects to clause
10, which newer versions revise.


Sparse's license has come up on the list several times.  At least one of
those times, the question of relicensing it came up; it seems that none
of the developers object to it.  However, quoting Linus from one of
those discussions:
> Yeah, the OSL wasn't the best choice. I tried to change it (look in the 
> sparse email archives) a few years ago, but I never got in contact with 
> anybody at Transmeta back then who could have the power to relicense, and 
> while my work with Linux has always been unquestionably mine (ie my work 
> contract explicitly stated such), with sparse it isn't as obvious..
> 
> So back then, I couldn't get anybody to look at it (not that I tried all 
> that hard), and I don't think I even have any contacts left to people I 
> know at Transmeta any more.

If anyone wants to try to find the right people to talk to, and for that
matter to get explicit assent from each of the developers, I would
greatly appreciate it.

Sparse's license has in at least one case made it difficult for a
potential user of Sparse, namely the gobject-introspection work.

- Josh Triplett

Re: sparse licensing query

[H. Peter Anvin]

Josh Triplett wrote:
>> So back then, I couldn't get anybody to look at it (not that I tried all 
>> that hard), and I don't think I even have any contacts left to people I 
>> know at Transmeta any more.
> 
> If anyone wants to try to find the right people to talk to, and for that
> matter to get explicit assent from each of the developers, I would
> greatly appreciate it.

If anyone needs a contact at Transmeta, contact me; I can probably get 
in touch with the relevant people.

	-hpa