Editing Open Software License (section)

==Comparison with the LGPL and GPL==
The OSL is intended to be similar to the [[LGPL]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf |title=Open Software License ("OSL") v. 3.0 |access-date=2012-10-15}}</ref> Note that the definition of ''Derivative Works'' in the OSL does ''not'' cover linking to OSL software/libraries so software that merely links to OSL software is ''not'' subject to the OSL license.

The OSL is not compatible with the [[GPL]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy |title=Philosophy of the GNU Project – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF) |publisher=Gnu.org |date=2012-02-26 |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> It has been claimed that the OSL is intended to be legally stronger than the GPL (with the main difference "making the software available for use over the Internet requires making the source code available"<ref name=airs/> that is the same goal as the even newer [[GNU Affero General Public License]] (AGPL), that is compatible with GPLv3),<ref name=airs>{{cite web|url=http://www.airs.com/ian/essays/licensing/licensing.html |title=Choosing an Open Source License |publisher=Airs.com |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> however, unlike the GPL, the OSL has never been tested in court and is not widely used.

===Assent to license===
The restriction contained in Section 9 of the OSL reads:

{{blockquote|If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.<ref name="Open Source Initiative"/>}}

In its analysis of the OSL the [[Free Software Foundation]] claims that "this requirement means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, can arguably be a violation of the license and would subject violators to possible termination of the license. Thus, the OSL makes it challenging to develop software using the ordinary tools of Free Software development."<ref name=gnu>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OSL |title=Various Licenses and Comments about Them – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF) |publisher=Gnu.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

Rosen contradicts this, stating in an explanation of his license that "most open source projects and commercial distributors already use appropriate procedures to obtain the manifest assent of their licensees, so this OSL 3.0 requirement is not intended to require something different than what now happens in ordinary software distribution practice."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm#_Toc187293086 |title=OSL 3.0 Explained |publisher=rosenlaw.com  |access-date=2023-12-12}}</ref>

===Distribution===
If the FSF claim is true then the main difference between the GPL and OSL concerns possible restrictions on redistribution.  Both licenses impose a kind of reciprocity condition requiring authors of extensions to the software to license those extensions with the respective license of the original work.

===Patent action termination clause===
The patent action termination clause, described above, is a further significant difference between the OSL and GPL.