Open Source Weblog

First off, the withdrawal of the STPL and GAP. Earlier this month SocialText CEO, Ross Mayfield, announced the move:

“Yesterday we withdrew both the Socialtext Public License (STPL) and the Generic Attribution Provision (GAP) from consideration by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). We remain committed to following the process by either getting a MPL + Attribution license approved by OSI (variants of which are in use by over 20 commercial open source application companies), or choosing another OSI approved license," he wrote.

“We have been working on a new license, the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL), based on feedback from OSI-discuss.”

Yesterday he explained the reasoning:

“When we submitted the Generic Attribution Provision (GAP) to OSI back in November we tried to both gain certification for an MPL+Attribution license, and do so in a non-standard way. We sought to have attribution be a provision you could add to any of the 50+ approved licenses that allowed for extension. While this might result in a more favorable taxonomy of available licenses and make license proliferation more future proof, we didn't follow the process correctly and submit a complete license,” he wrote.

“We then took too long to draft and submit the Socialtext Public License (STPL) in March. When OSI was going to vote upon it this month, we didn't have enough time to incorporate feedback, test the draft of the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL) against our own goals and have time for the OSI-discuss mailing list to vet it.”

As Mayfield explains, the issue will impact many more projects than SocialText:

“Approximately 40 companies use similar licenses without following this process and are looking to us for leadership. I'm not certain how many will adopt CPAL if approved, but I have a role in why there is no conclusion to certifying an attribution license, yet.”

While some people have questioned whether the OSI has the right to police the use of the term “open source”, Mayfield himself is respectful of Tiemann’s new hard line approach:

“I applaud Michael's stand, as this kind of leadership helps move some core issues forward. Socialtext has advocated that commercial open source companies should follow the OSI process and gain OSI Certification, as we are. I've said that we won't use the OSI Certified mark until we have earned it, but use the term open source. However, while this is technically correct, I'm concerned about the unfolding rift in the community.”

While the company is committed to using an OSI-approved license it would prefer to have the OSI approve the CPAL. In the meantime, Mayfiled admits to be having an identity crisis:

“Technically, I'm not sure what we should call ourselves right now,” he writes. “So what I'd like to hear from the community is what we should call ourselves. If the consent of the community isn't open source, but to use a different term, I'll edit our site and wiki appropriately. It should be a short term moniker for us, but I believe it is our responsibility if we want to be part of the larger open source community.”

Any suggestions?