<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:41 PM Smith, McCoy <<a href="mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">mccoy.smith@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-5476175313335854677m_-3814645471144067432gmail-m_-683197816340383074WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-5476175313335854677_m_-3814645471144067432_m_-683197816340383074______replyseparator" rel="noreferrer"></a><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">>>From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> License-discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Perens<br>
<b>>>Sent:</b> Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM<br>
<b>>>To:</b> <a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<b>>>Subject:</b> [License-discuss] The per se license constructor<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">>></span>I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is entirely outside of the OSD.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">At the risk of arguing against my own interest (I’m a lawyer), requiring a submitter to retain a lawyer in license drafting and/or review is a potential barrier to entry (lawyers being expensive) and could come
across as the process being taken over by lawyers (and possibly even a limited group of lawyers). I’m not sure that helps with the perception issues other are expressing in threads the past few days<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br>
Drafting or review by a lawyer is no guarantee of quality, and I’d submit that drafting and review by a non-lawyer is not a guarantee of non-quality (pardon the triple negative).</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>McCoy makes an excellent point here. Does legal review exist primarily as a barrier to weed out low quality or inappropriate submissions, or does it serve another purpose?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't believe, as Bruce suggests, that it acts to reduce risk to license users. Suppose that Bob hires Alice to review a hypothetical Malicious Compliance Free Software License (MCFSL), which attempts to abide by the OSD in the worst way possible. Alice is Bob's attorney, not mine. Her opinion on the fitness of the MCFSL applies to her client, not me.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The legal review requirement is also fairly weak. An oil and gas attorney can tell you all about mineral leases, but they don't necessarily have useful advice when it comes to copyright. </div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps legal review is there in part to raise the bar and filter out noise. In that case we're doing a disservice to submitters by providing feedback so late in the process. There are entire conceptual classes of licenses that can be rejected without access to the full license text. Licenses that require royalties, for example. No one should be hiring an attorney to draft a license that will be rejected out of hand.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Brendan</div></div></div></div>
</div>