<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<span style="white-space: pre;">> In that context USD 50 as a fixed
fee is far too small. It might<br>
> just cover minor variations on the BSD licence, but it will not
cover<br>
> providing a proper legal analysis on any non-trivial document; it
may<br>
> not even cover the time taken to extract missing details from the<br>
> submitter.</span><br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
See e.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/200604.htm">http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/200604.htm</a> <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Approving a copyright license by its very definition involves
exercising legal judgement and discreation.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>