[MAPSERVER-DEV] Standardized source header

[Pericles S. Nacionales]

What about just applying for approval or clarification from OSI.  It's 
clear that the MapServer license can be considered as redundant with the 
MIT license...  It might be that all that is needed is OSI recognizing 
this as the case and that by virtue of being redundant is also approved 
but classified as MIT-type license.

Here's a link to OSI's license review process: 
http://www.opensource.org/approval

The relevant section for MapServer is "Legacy Approval":


      For Legacy Approval


        By: License Steward or Interested Licensee

Retroactive approval of historic/legacy licenses that have already been 
extensively used by an existing community, but have not previously been 
approved.

    * Recommend which license proliferation category
      <https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/help/proliferation> is appropriate
    * Requires less justification than Approval of a new license



Cheers!
-Perry

Steve Lime wrote:
> I've pinged Tom on the reasons behind the difference. I can see why it was wanted though since "substantial" is
> sufficiently vague. Now, to change we'd need confirmation from all contributors that we can reasonably track
> down correct?
>
> Steve
>
>   
>>>> On 2/11/2008 at 11:56 AM, in message
>>>>         
> <45798.212.79.172.164.1202752573.squirrel at vogon.ccgis.de>, "Arnulf Christl
> (OSGeo)" <arnulf.christl at wheregroup.com> wrote:
>   
>> Steve,
>> the difference between the two licenses can be seen here:
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=MapServer_Provenance_Review&diff=22575&o 
>> ldid=22574
>>
>> The relevant bit is:
>>
>> MIT:
>> "all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
>>
>> MapServer:
>> "all copies of this Software or works derived from this Software."
>>
>> I don't see a real problem but I would still suggest that while you are at
>> it you might want to decide to change your standard header for the OSI
>> certified one.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>>     
>>>>>> Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at wheregroup.com> 02/08/08 2:44 AM >>>
>>>>>>             
>>> Steve Lime wrote:
>>>       
>> [...]
>>     
>>>> I don't see how OSI certification impacts this at all. I believe that,
>>>> way back, Tom Burk submitted the  MapServer  license to them for
>>>> approval but never received a response...
>>>>         
>> One of the common goals of FSF and OSI is to prevent proliferation of
>> licenses. OSGeo says this about licensing (maybe this needs to be changed
>> a bit):
>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html 
>>
>> "The foundation's projects are all freely available and useable under an
>> OSI-certified open source license." Open Source Initiative (tm) Logo
>>
>>
>> But on the Open Source org page it says: The logo "Open Source Initiative
>> (tm)" may only be used by projects that use one of the approved licenses.
>>
>> Search this page for logo to read about usage:
>> http://opensource.org/faq 
>>
>> I should have noticed this earlier. This has probably no relevance as long
>> as OSGeo is not the Copyright owner. On the other hand OSGeo wants to be a
>> common roof and wears the OSI trademark on the web. Any comments?
>>
>> Regards, Arnulf.
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>