OSI Certification Process

[Alex Nicolaou]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
> From: Alex Nicolaou <anicolao at cgl.uwaterloo.ca>
> > I've attempted to do all of these things with an open mind, and have
> > tried especially hard to be receptive to commentary and always get
> > specific commentary that enables me to change the license so that it is
> > more satisfactory.
> 
> I can no longer recommend that _anyone_ accept a free software license
> that has had no input from an attorney. Two years ago, we could rarely
> find an attorney willing or able to work on an Open Source license. Now
> that we can, and now that free software is such big business, it's a bad
> idea to settle for less. I can just see some poor hacker using your license
> and then having to be the first one to test it in court. You want me to put
> someone in that position?

Three responses to this:

1. I didn't think OSI Certification constituted a recommendation that
someone use a license. I thought it was a seal of approval that the end
user can use to know that they are running an open source system that
doesn't place undue obligations on them. The OSI Gold/OSI distinction I
suggested can be used to distinguish between recommended licenses and
merely compliant licenses.

2. I actually was planning to get the license reviewed by an attorney (a
USA one, no less). However, since the OSI certification process calls
for public review, I felt it was more prudent to do that part *first* so
that I don't have to pay the attorney twice! Clearly getting the license
reviewed is an expensive proposition, and there's really no point doing
it more than once. 

3. I have already seen reports from several attorneys on the GPL, and
what they have to say is extremely disturbing - and yet you are willing
to recommend the GPL! If you have an attorney's analysis of the GPL that
you think is good, please give us a link to it; it would be great to
read something positive about the license that was written by an
attorney.

> > In the Canadian legal system, this type of license
> > would be more binding and usable in court
> 
> I know some of the British-descended countries let anyone practice law, I
> don't know about Canada. I suspect that an attorney would be more qualified
> to give that opinion, though.

It's not so much a question of who's allowed to practice law as it is a
question of how much "common sense" is upheld in a court of law. The
idea that someone can sue McDonald's because she put their coffee
between her legs while driving and suffered serious burns seems
laughable in Canada - the sad fact that so many of our paper coffee cups
are meant for the USA market is reflected by the fact that they now all
say "Caution - Coffee is Hot" (in English only, instead of English and
French). In no other countries in the world can you find such an
absurdity. 

Similarly, "common sense" legal agreements are considered in a positive
light here, since the fact that they aren't couched in legalese makes it
easier to understand them and thus more appropriate for mass market
consumers. That doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to have the agreement
reviewed by an attorney; it just means that the fact that the agreement
wasn't written by an attorney doesn't affect whether or not it is
worthwhile.

alex