publicgoods-candidates icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
publicgoods-candidates copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon DPGAlliance

Re-review DPG: VIPS

Open ricardomiron opened this issue 2 years ago • 1 comments

Some considerations for this re-review:

  1. I think licensing field should point out to the LICENSE file within the specific digital solution source code. (This PR updates license link to core VIPS repository)
  2. It has it's own license based on GNU APL 3.0 but with one difference.

https://nibio.no/en/about-eng/software-licenses-and-agreements

NIBIO Open Source License This License is specific for the VIPS project. It's based on the GNU Affero Public License v3, and differs only on one significant matter: Models developed for VIPS do not need to be Open Source Licensed in order to be combined with the VIPS Platform software.

ricardomiron avatar Sep 30 '22 18:09 ricardomiron

However, instead of dropping the submission, I suggest we give the candidate project a chance for remediation by encouraging them to pursue the License Review Process with the Open Source Initiative. I read the license and it is actually fascinating: it uses a strong copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) and adds a "permissive data layer" on top of the AGPL-3.0[*]. I haven't seen a license do something like this before, except maybe how the Cryptographic Autonomy License handles data. As a non-lawyer, I think it is clever and answers an unanswered question around how data should be treated in software that builds or generates learning models from data. Theoretically, the essence of the changes made to the AGPL-3.0 base could also be compatible with the Open Source Definition.

Has the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research pursued the License Review Process with the Open Source Initiative before? I am curious if this was done or not, as it will be very indicative to the action we have make on this submission as a recognized DPG.

Thanks for you feedback @jwflory , I will communicate this concerns with the project owner.

Do you think another option besides applying for OSI with their own license, can be to use two separate licenses and use an OSI approved for the main software component?

CC @siddharthvipul

ricardomiron avatar Oct 20 '22 14:10 ricardomiron

I will close this PR as the renewal review will be conducted through the new web app. Thanks

ricardomiron avatar Nov 14 '22 20:11 ricardomiron