As you are aware TenderSystem OS is released under the TenderSystem Public License (TPL), which is an adapted version of the Mozilla Public License, with an attribution clause. This license was conceived by SugarCRM, after vTiger forked their code base and released it as vTiger CRM, which is explained in an article, Code Theft or Liberalisation, that I wrote in December 2004.

The vTiger fork was not for technical reasons, which is one of the strengths of open source software, but rather a business strategy, in effect “leeching” of the hype created by SugarCRM and the work they have done. SugarCRM then added an attribution clause (SPL v1.1.3) to prevent this from happening again in the future. During the mudslinging that ensued SugarCRM were criticised for the way they handled the situation and not for license changes, as it was understandable why they were implemented.

At that stage we were busy evaluating the various open source licenses to release the TenderSystem code base, and saw the genius behind this model, especially for a web user interface application, that created a win-win scenario for developers and the community at large.

When TenderSystem was released under the TPL it was not submitted to OSI for certification, as there is pressure to decrease the number of approved licenses, even though it adheres to the definitions of open source. OSI will also most probably not certify project specific licenses, as the MPL states that the words “Mozilla” and “Netscape” may not be used for a derivative licenses, thereby creating a new license even though no other wording is altered.

Since then many projects were launched under this license and some existing projects even changed to this license due to the good fit for web based applications, as is the GPL for embedded applications. Lately some critics have come to the fore saying that the license is a form of badgeware and that it encumbers the spirit of open source.

Fortunately Mitch Radcliffe from Socialtext, a projects that also release under an adapted license, has submitted a General Attribution Provision (GAP), to be attached to OSI approved licenses that make provision for it, for approval to to the OSI board. The general provision is a very clever idea, as it will not affect the OSI license proliferation problems, and hopefully a formal response of their views will be released shortly.

If this is approved it will allow these projects to embrace other licenses, such as the GPL or LGPL, will most probably be TenderSystem’s choice, instead of just the MPL as is the current scenario.

Nicholas Goodman commented on the GAP provision on his blog to also provide limited Trademark and logo rights to prevent projects from circumventing the license through Trademark usage. The problem that this might cause is that a Trademark has to be protected to remain valid, which was the cause behind the Debian/Firefox debacle, and might be better to insert a complete Trademark Usage Policy, or version, in the license.

Rick Moen blogged wrote an article at Linux Gazette that members of the OSI mailing list found an obstacle with OSI’s definition #10, namely “License Must Be Technology-Neutral”, in that sometimes a user interface is not present, such as when running a daemon. This should not be a problem by rewording the GAP to a “reasonable attribution”, the term coined in Nicholas Goodman’s blog, in that adherence to attribution is only required when a user interface is present.

Which ever way it turns out I look forward to the outcome of the process and sure that there are going to be some interesting comments to this post.

[UPDATE: Socialtext have withdrawn the GAP for OSI board revision and will submit a new license in the future.]