{"id":"OSL-3.0","title":"Open Software License 3.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/OSL-3.0.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The Open Software License is strong copyleft: clause 1(c) requires every copy the licensee distributes to be licensed under this same license, and clause 5 treats network use as distribution. The record had it backwards, modelling share-alike as an optional permission and prohibiting the sublicensing the license expressly grants. Both were corrected, the SPDX id was added, dct:source was repointed at the license itself, and the liability clause was recorded.","findings":[{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Clause 1(c) grants the right \"to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Open Software License\". That is a duty, not a permission. Removed the cc:ShareAlike permission and added a license-wide cc:ShareAlike duty, the form the GNU and Mozilla records use.","action":"applied","change":"# removed the cc:ShareAlike permission; added\nodrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n        odrl:action cc:ShareAlike ] ;\n"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"Clause 1 grants a \"worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license\". The record prohibited odrl:grantUse, which the text contradicts. Removed the prohibition. The matching permission was deliberately not added: the dependency graph axiom \"cc:ShareAlike dalicc:contradicts odrl:grantUse\" would then report a direct conflict, and this license proves the axiom is too strong, since a sublicense under the same terms is exactly what clause 1(c) requires.","action":"applied","change":"# removed\nodrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action odrl:grantUse ] ;\n"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The permission that belongs with the finding above. It needs the dependency-graph decision first.","action":"proposed","change":"odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action odrl:grantUse ] ;\n"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"Added OSL-3.0 and repointed dct:source, which named rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm, an explanatory commentary, rather than the license text.","action":"applied","change":"spdx:licenseId \"OSL-3.0\" ;\ndct:source osl:OSL-3.0 ;\n"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:LiabilityLimitation","description":"Clause 8 was not recorded. Added, quoted. dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer already held clause 7 correctly.","action":"applied","change":"dalicc:LiabilityLimitation \"Under no circumstances and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, shall the Licensor be liable ...\" ;\n"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"vocabulary","description":"Clause 5, External Deployment, states: \"You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c)\", and External Deployment includes making the work \"available as an application intended for use over a network\". This is the same trigger as in the Affero GPL. Clause 2 grants patents, clause 10 terminates on patent action, clause 9 requires a reasonable effort to obtain the recipient's assent. Proposed: dalicc:networkUseTrigger, dalicc:patentGrant, dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination, dalicc:recipientAssent.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"family","description":"AFL-3.0 is the same document with clause 1(c) relaxed. After the review the two records differ exactly there: this one requires share-alike, that one permits dalicc:ChangeLicense.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"major","field":"record","description":"Standard-license addition of 2026-09-15, decision 9: the record was corrected against its new siblings and versioned. The review's finding on family consistency and consolidation decision 4: the record permitted dalicc:noWarrantyNotice and prohibited dalicc:addStatement without support, made no patent statement although section 2 grants one and section 10 ends it on patent litigation, and said nothing about relicensing although clause 1(c) requires every copy to be 'licensed under this License', which the four new Open Software License records model as a dalicc:ChangeLicense prohibition.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Other OSI approved licenses (corporate, academic, weak copyleft)","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"This record is the clearest evidence that the dependency-graph axiom linking share-alike and grant-use needs refining."}