May 2025 license-discuss summary

General
1

Hi everyone,

We are experimenting with providing a summary of both license-review and license-discuss mailing lists using AI.

Here is a summary of the May 2025 discussion on the OSI License-Discuss mailing list regarding the Privative-Friendly Source-Shared License (PFSSL) v1.0:

1. License Submission

  • Rafael Senties Martinelli submitted the PFSSL v1.0 for OSI review and approval.

  • The PFSSL aims to be a middle ground between permissive licenses (like MIT/BSD) and strong copyleft licenses (like LGPL/AGPL).

  • Key goals:

    • Compatibility with proprietary software (i.e., non-infective).

    • Requires source code availability, clear attribution, and network-use provisions.

  • No projects currently use the license, but Rafael plans to apply it to his own software.

2. License Structure and Clauses

  • The full license text was included, emphasizing:

    • Linking with both open and closed-source software is allowed.

    • Mandatory source code disclosure when distributing modified versions or deploying the software over a network.

    • Header file use in proprietary software is allowed, except for logic-heavy code.

    • Strong requirements for attribution, modification notices, and differentiation between original and modified versions.

    • Includes a fallback mechanism for source availability if the original distribution location becomes unavailable.

    • Integrity clause forbids modifying the license text itself.

3. Community Feedback

  • Kevin P. Fleming advised Rafael to follow OSI’s formal license-review process, which includes:

    • Sending the request to the correct mailing list (license-review).

    • Explaining the legal gap PFSSL fills.

    • Comparing it with existing OSI-approved licenses.

    • Disclosing whether it was reviewed or drafted by legal counsel.

  • Josh Berkus asked whether the license was based on existing license texts, noting similarities. Rafael responded that while the PFSSL is not a derivative of any specific license, it draws inspiration from MIT, MPL, GPL, and Apache, aiming for clarity and accessibility.

Conclusion:
The PFSSL v1.0 sparked initial interest but did not proceed far in the approval process due to missing procedural requirements. The OSI community emphasized the need for formal comparative analysis and clarity on legal authorship before the license could be seriously considered.