Request For Approval: Iggy Wanna Licence - Legal Analysis

[Brendan Scott]

Dear Reviewers

Re: Request for Approval of Iggy Wanna Licence - Legal Analysis

This email contains the available legal analysis of the Iggy Wanna licence as foreshadowed in the email requesting approval of the licence.  The request for approval is available here: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:234:200805:mnoaiekgfckojngkngna

Yours faithfully 


Brendan Scott
Principal 
Open Source Law


****** Results of Available Legal Analysis in Support of Request for Approval of Iggy Wanna Licence


Gernot Heiser
CTO and Founder
Open Kernel Labs
http://www.ok-labs.com/


Dear Gernot

Re: Analysis of Iggy Wanna Licence

1. Introduction

1.1 You have asked me to analyse Open Kernel Labs' "Iggy Wanna" Licence, to identify changes between it and part of the SleepyCat licence and to express an opinion on whether these changes would result in non-compliance with the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd).  

1.2 The Iggy Wanna licence is based on an existing licence, called the "Sleepycat License" and, in particular, on the Sleepycat Software portion of that licence (Sleepycat Portion).  A copy of the Sleepycat Licence is available from: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php.  

1.3 The changes between this licence and the Sleepycat Portion are listed below.  In my view, none of these changes should affect the compliance of the licence with the requirements of the Open Source Definition (OSD) either individually or taken together. 

2. List of Changes 
2.1 The changes between the Iggy Wanna Licence and the Sleepycat Portion are: 
(a) The addition of numbering to paragraphs to aid ease of reference and white space to aid readability;
(b) The conversion of Sleepycat specific references into a licence template form.  This permits third parties to take some of the benefits of the licence;
(c) The substitution of specific clause references in place of the words "this list of conditions", and of a definition "Licence Terms" to aid clarity;
(d) A clarification of what is meant by "use" in respect of accompanying software (ie, use includes indirect use); 
(e) A statement that the accompanying software must be licensed under a licence approved by the Open Source Initiative.  This replaces the concepts of "freely redistributable" and "under reasonable conditions" and therefore adds certainty to the licensing requirements; 
(f) The removal of the "major components" exclusion.  This will permit the licence to have effect when used in respect of major components of an operating system.  The removal of this exclusion was necessary for the licence to have relevance for operating systems on embedded devices, which is one of its substantial intended use cases.  This removal should not affect compliance with the OSD;
(g) The expansion of the disclaimer of warranties. In some circumstances some jurisdictions imply warranties or other terms and conditions into the supply of software and prohibit the exclusion of these warranties etc.  This addition is intended to: minimise the risk of illegality of the licence by excluding such implied terms to the extent permitted by law; and to permit the adoption of available and legally permitted limitations on such implied terms.  The changes are also expressed to be in favour of participants but with the interests of the Copyright Holder taking precedence to the extent of inconsistency. 
(h) The expansion of the limitation of liability clause to also cover participants.  

2.2  Of those changes, (a), (b), (c) and (d) clarify some terms of the licence.   Change (e) restricts licences which can be used to OSI approved licences.  As many licences have more stringent requirements (eg requiring the use of a single, specified OSI approved licence) this should not affect compliance with the OSD.  Change (f) removes a specific exclusion to the general words requiring source code to be provided.  As a number of OSI approved licences do not have such an exclusion, its removal in this case should not affect compliance with the OSD. Changes (g) and (h) provide expanded disclaimers and limitation of liabilty, neither of which is regulated by the OSD.

3. Conclusion    
The Iggy Wanna Licence has been created by making the modifications listed in paragraph 2.1 above to an existing OSI approved (and therefore OSD-compliant) licence. These modifications to the existing licence should not result in the violation of the OSD. 

Please call me if you would like to discuss. 

Regards



Brendan