Dear All,
I would like to propose adding the OSL-3.0 license to the list of
"standard" licenses bundled with R:
Index: share/licenses/license.db
==================================================================---
share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733)
+++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy)
@@ -317,3 +317,12 @@
URL: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice
FOSS: no
Restricts_use: yes
+
+Name: Open Software License
+Abbrev: OSL
+Version: 3.0
+SSS: OSL-3.0
+FSF: free_and_GPLv3_incompatible (
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL)
+OSI: open (http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0)
+URL: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf
+FOSS: yes
The great advantage of OSL is that it's similar to AGPL in the means of
requesting the derivative works to be published with an open source license
even if the program is not distributed, only used in a network service --
which is more and more common nowadays.
But AGPL is not supported by bunch of companies (like Google) due to that
license might seem too restrictive with "linked programs": some
lawyers say
that any program including AGPL software should be released with AGPL
license -- which is non-sense of course, but OSL request to publish only
those updates, that are related to the original work -- so thus this is a
not neater solution, and also supporter by e.g. Google.
Thanks for considering this.
Best,
Gergely
-------------- next part --------------
Index: share/licenses/license.db
==================================================================---
share/licenses/license.db (revision 66733)
+++ share/licenses/license.db (working copy)
@@ -317,3 +317,12 @@
URL: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice
FOSS: no
Restricts_use: yes
+
+Name: Open Software License
+Abbrev: OSL
+Version: 3.0
+SSS: OSL-3.0
+FSF: free_and_GPLv3_incompatible
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL)
+OSI: open (http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0)
+URL: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf
+FOSS: yes
