[adms_foss-wg] use ccREL to classify licences

Rashid Tariq Tariq.Rashid at homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Fri Mar 2 18:58:09 CET 2012


I would support an approach with allowed differentiation between


(1)   Not OSI approved licence

(2)   OSI approved and within the common recommended subset by OSI (GPL, Apache, MIT, etc)

(3)   OSI approved but not common licence

This would be of practical use because:


*         It would enable users to understand if the claimed license was in fact OSI approved - some aren't

*         And if it was a common license - to reduce the overhead of legal/compliance management


Regards

Tariq Rashid
Lead Architect
HOIT Technology Solutions & Assurance
Home Office, 4th Floor, Seacole
2 Marsham Street, SW1P 4DF
Blackberry 07920451439

From: adms_foss-wg-bounces at joinup.ec.europa.eu [mailto:adms_foss-wg-bounces at joinup.ec.europa.eu] On Behalf Of Tony Wasserman
Sent: 01 March 2012 18:46
To: Olivier Berger
Cc: adms_foss-wg at joinup.ec.europa.eu
Subject: Re: [adms_foss-wg] use ccREL to classify licences

For those of you who may be unaware of this, the Open Source Initiative
(www.opensource.org<http://www.opensource.org>) has a subgroup that reviews open source licenses
and publishes the licenses on the site at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Many of these licenses are in extremely limited use.  When asked, we encourage
new projects to choose from a subset of these licenses that cover the spectrum
from liberal (MIT, BSD) to restrictive (GPL), with several in between
(Apache, Mozilla) and several closely tied to specific projects (Eclipse, etc.)

Tony Wasserman
Executive Director, Center for Open Source Investigation
Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley

Director, Open Source Initiative

http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonywasserman

http://about.me/tony.wasserman/bio

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Olivier Berger <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu<mailto:olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>> wrote:
Hi.

May I comment (and sorry if this has been addressed in the last meeting
I've missed) on this... and sorry if I'm missing the point.

( IANAL disclaimer [0] applies below, of course ;) )

For Free and Open Source Software, the licences are quite clearly
understood and usually don't have such variability as with CC licences
used for other kinds of works.

I guess that SPDX is doing a very interesting work in describing the
FLOSS licences [1], so I guess we should refrain from reinventing any wheel
here, and merely stick to it as much as possible, for direct
interoperability matters.

Upstream software projects and package descriptions, as well as
AMDS.F/OSS metadata, as well as dowstream distribution packages can then
describe licences in the same way, which would be one big achievement
IMHO.

And if a license is not covered by SPDX... well then certainly makes it
highly suspicious of being proprietary in some way, IMHO, thus deserving
some 'other' classification as far as ADMS.F/OSS is concerned ;-)

Of course for other kinds of assets in the more general ADMS picture,
then it's probably a lot different situation.

Just my 2 cents,

Best regards.

P.S.: licence proliferation is a pain and if we can help in any way to
fight it, then great ;)

[0] I Am Not A Lawyer
[1] http://www.spdx.org/licenses/

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:48:46 +0100, stijn.goedertier at pwc.be<mailto:stijn.goedertier at pwc.be> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> Thank you very much for your interest in our work and for joining the
> Working Group.
>
> One of the areas you could really help us with is whether or not we could
> also refer to ccREL [1] to qualify software or semantic asset licences.
> The ADMS specification [2], which the ADMS.F/OSS currently reuses,
> includes a simple vocabulary of 13 terms to qualify the nature of a
> licence. Our main use case for ADMS(.F/OSS) is to enhance the
> retrievability of software assets, which motivates our choice for the
> following simple licence type vocabulary [2, page 25]:
>
> Public domain
> Attribution
> Viral effect (a.k.a. Share-alike)
> non-commercial use only
> no derivative work
> royalties required
> reserved names / endorsement / official status
> nominal cost
> grant back
> Jurisdiction within the EU
> other restrictive clauses
> known patent encumbrance
> unknown IPR
>
> Can something similar be achieved by ccREL? Can ccRELbe applied to any
> licence?
> ( ... cc:require cc:Attribution ?)
>  (... cc:prohibits  cc:DerivativeWorks?)
>
> For you to know whom you are dealing with, I have no IPR background
> whatsoever.
>
> with kind regards,
> Stijn
>
> [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL
> [2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms/release/08
> [3]
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/document/joinup-semantic-asset-licensing-framework
>

--
Olivier BERGER
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/<http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/%7Eberger_o/> - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)



This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please return it to the address
it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.
This email message has been swept for computer viruses.

**********************************************************************


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/archives/adms_foss-wg/attachments/20120302/34d16c53/attachment.html>


More information about the adms_foss-wg mailing list