Motosoto license text is incomplete about licenses HOT 8 CLOSED

The mailing list posting with the request for approval from 2001-05-23 contains an attached license document (HTML document).

from licenses.

@nicoroeser can you please be more precise for where you see the issue? I checked the files in the repository and I can't find where the text of the Motosoto license is not complete.

from licenses.

The Motosoto license file, which you mentioned, has 10 sections. Compare that to the Jabber Open Source License file, which has 15 numbered sections, an exhibit A, and further paragraphs.

Particularly have a look at the last section, specifically the last lines, of the Motosoto license text:

(file ends here!)

… and the corresponding part in jabberpl:

(license text does not end here!)

Note that the Motosoto license file does not end with a full stop (or other punctuation mark). This is not a clear indication that something is missing, but looks wrong. Read the last sentence. Well, it makes some sense, but sounds strange, and feels incomplete when comparing it to the common wordings used in that context in other licenses (e.g. most of them have the word “negligence” somewhere nearby).

Use something like wdiff -n jabberpl Motosoto | colordiff | less -R, for example, for a detailed comparison between the licenses stored in the repository.

Compare the current Motosoto license document in the repository to the version that had originally been sent in, see my previous comment. I know that is an earlier version, before feedback had been integrated, but it is unlikely that large parts of text should have been removed.

Note the following forward references in the Motosoto license text:

• the end of the preamble refers to “a Glossary at the end of the License”, but it is not there;
• section 4.e as well as section 6 mention “Exhibit A”, but such an exhibit is not contained in the document.

from licenses.

Note, also relates to spdx/license-list-XML#1966

As a related note, I would not necessarily compare to Jabber, which has it's own issues as per research I did some years ago that found that the version on OSI site is not the same as version at http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf (substantive diff includes inclusion in the latter of a definition of Source Code and "reasonably necessarly" qualifier in patent grant)
see https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/435?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,jabber,20,2,0,22080275 for doc with diff

from licenses.

@smaffulli - I think what @nicoroeser is trying to point out is the the text that appears on the OSI site at https://opensource.org/license/motosoto-php/ for the Motosoto license does not match (b/c it's missing some of the last sections) what was submitted back in 2001 at https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2001-May/003732.html

from licenses.

https://opensource.org/license/motosoto/ the page has been updated

from licenses.

Thank you for the update, @smaffulli !

Now that web page shows a different license version in the page header block (“Version 0.9.1”) and the license text (“Version 0.9”). Would you be so kind and look at the situation again and make another correction accordingly? I don’t know whether OSI has approved version 0.9 or 0.9.1, but I assume that the stated versions should at least be identical in both places?

from licenses.

thanks, the version that was submitted is 0.9, as seen here: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2001-May/003732.html. I fixed the metadata of the license page.

from licenses.