[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Greeting dlw, Aloha All,

This is relevant to the license discuss approval process.

Triaging this will take more gumption than I have right now, but I'm  
placing it on my stack.

On Oct 12, 2007, at 04:25PDT (CA), dlw wrote:
> > In that context USD 50 as a fixed fee is far too small. It might
> > just cover minor variations on the BSD licence, but it will not  
> cover
> > providing a proper legal analysis on any non-trivial document; it  
> may
> > not even cover the time taken to extract missing details from the
> > submitter.
>
> I must say that I love the lively discussion that takes place in  
> the OSI forum of ideas concerning copyright  licenses (and other  
> subjects). The very essence of a free society is the exchange of  
> ideas among citizens. When discussion  ensues  by individuals that  
> focuses on a legal topic it is clear from the context that the  
> individual is simply representing his personal opinion -- no IANAL  
> disclaimers are neccessary. Accusations of UPL are sometimes  
> bandied about as a "cheap shot" intimidation tactic.
>
> The definition of the  unauthorized practice of law ( UPL) varies  
> widely among the many state and federal jurisdictions.  It seems no  
> one can fully agree as to precisely what it means.
>
> See e.g.  http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/200604.htm
>
> The very essence of the UPL is defined by the phrase "advocating or  
> advising on behalf of another in some legal capacity". Stating your  
> personal beliefs on your own behalf is never the UPL. Most UPL  
> actions are brought against trained lawyers who are practicing  
> outside their approved jurisdiction.
>
> Approving a copyright license by its very definition involves  
> exercising legal judgement and discreation.
>
> I believe the official OSI certification process is skirting  
> dangerously close to the definition of UPL. "Approving" a copyright  
> license used by a commercial entity seems to me to be fraught with  
> danger. Accepting fees only compounds that suspicion.
>
> I suspect that someday an "OSI approved license" will fail in a  
> court of law and then some litiguous corporation (think SCO) will  
> complain to the local bar association. A complaint (whether upheld  
> or not) could result in rather unpleasant consequences for  
> organization board members.


Cheers!
--zak