New license request: DCL-1.0 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[thedavidmeister]

1. License Name: DecentraLicense v1.0 2. Short identifier: DCL-1.0 3. License Author or steward: Rain open source software Ltd 4. Comments: A. The submitted license must not match another license already on the SPDX License List as per the SPDX matching guidelines.

Decentralicense is modified from Cryptographic Autonomy License version 1.0 which is already in the SPDX list.

The diff between the two licenses can be seen at https://github.com/rainlanguage/decentralicense/pull/1/files

We consulted with the authors of CAL before making the modifications.

B. All OSI-approved licenses will be included on the SPDX License List.

CAL-1.0 is OSI approved but Decentralicense is not (has not been submitted or attempted to be included).

C. Software licenses that apply only to executables and do not provide for the availability of the source code will not be included on the SPDX License List.

Decentralicense explicitly requires all source code (as part of the system "rules") be public and in a human comprehensible form.

D. The license has identifiable and stable text; it is not in the midst of drafting.

The license is stable, it is being submitted to SPDX because rainlang (smart contract language https://rainlang.xyz/) is migrating from CAL-1.0 to Decentralicense.

E. The license steward, if any, is committed to not modifying after addition to the list and to versioning new versions in the future.

Decentralicense is in github and versioned as 1.0 already. It will not be modified without a new version.

1. The license substantially complies with one of the following open source definitions (even if not submitted for approval or these organization have not considered the license):

Broadly decentralicense is very open. However, it seeks to define relationships between users (i.e. end users must retain exclusive access over their own private cryptographic keys), and in defining it implicitly restricts the domain in which the license makes sense to use. Some of the open source definitions (e.g. OSI) require the license to be technology agnostic, so decentralicense could potentially fail to meet that bar.

However, CAL-1.0 makes similar definitions and restrictions under clauses 4.2.x and is OSI approved, so I really cannot say whether decentralicense would be considered comparable or incompatible with OSI without formally submitting it.

Regardless, decentralicense would comply with other definitions in the list, such as https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/

2. The license is structured to be generally usable by anyone. It is not specific to one project, consortium or corporation.

The license is not specific at all.

3. The license has actual, substantial use such that it is likely to be encountered. Substantial use may be demonstrated via use in many projects, or in one or a few significant projects. For new licenses, there are definitive plans for the license to be used in one or a few significant projects.

This is a new license, it will be used by https://rainlang.xyz/ smart contract language, DEX and other ecosystem platforms built on/with rainlang.

4. If the license does not substantively comply with one of the above open source definitions, then the license is primarily intended for free distribution of content (including, in the case of software, its source code) with limited restrictions, and meets other factors listed here.

We believe the licence complies with at least one definition of open source.

5. The license steward supports or is at least aware of and does not oppose its submission to the SPDX License List.

Yes, the license steward not only supports, but would love to use DCL-1.0 directly from SPDX in their tooling. 5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/364 6. URL(s): 7. OSI Status: Not Submitted 8. Example Projects: 8. License Text Diff: https://github.com/spdx/licenseRequestImages/blob/master/fcf3af0d-f08a-4a5b-bffb-a67d4b026abb.png

Note: The license closely matched with the following license ID(s): CAL-1.0-Combined-Work-Exception

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe canonical name: DecentraLicense 1.0 short name: DCL-1.0 markers: Cryptographic Content Marker, Import/Export Marker, No Patent Rights Granted Marker, No Warranty Marker, Patent Information Marker, Secondary License Marker category: DCL OSI status: none

Comment Undecided whether to add... Since CAL-1.0 is on the list I tend towards adding to SPDX license list. However, I do not recommend to add a second license id including the exception within the id (identification of license vs associated license discussion).

[thedavidmeister]

@karsten-klein is there something i can do/change to make inclusion easier? i'm not sure exactly what you mean by "including the exception within the id"

[karsten-klein]

You can see it in the license license. There are two ids CAL-1.0 and CAL-1.0-Combined-Work-Exception which refer to the same underlying license text. In my eyes, this mixes license identification and license application/association. I would hope, that we do not do this for DCL-1.0.

[thedavidmeister]

@karsten-klein can you suggest a concrete example of what you would like it to look like?

i'm pretty open to changes if it's just a naming thing

[karsten-klein]

Let's wait for others to comment. I think your proposed name / identifier is a fit, while I would replace 'v1.0' with just '1.0': 'DecentraLicense 1.0'

[jlovejoy]

@thedavidmeister - from your comments as to changing things, is this license in the midst of still being drafted or finalized?

[thedavidmeister]

@jlovejoy my comment was that i'd be open to changing the SPDX name if the SPDX maintainers mandate it be changed for inclusion

the license is finalized

[thedavidmeister]

@jlovejoy @karsten-klein hey, sorry i'm not really familiar with this repo or process, what is the next step for this?

[xsuchy]

@thedavidmeister the discussion still continues. When it is all resolved, somebody will put here comment like this one: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2395#issuecomment-1998875647 and then PR can be drafted.

[thedavidmeister]

@xsuchy ok, thanks for the update, i'll wait to hear back