License Committee Report for September 2009

[Giancarlo Niccolai]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> This could be an example of the problem of non-attorney-written 
> licenses which do even their own authors a disservice because they 
> don't work as expected in court. I submit that for OSI to approve a 
> license, there should be an attorney willing to stand up for it and 
> either explain why its terms or necessary or repair them. OSI, IMO, 
> currently does developers a disservice by accepting (and thus, placing 
> its imprimatur upon) licenses which are legal trash.
>
>    Thanks
>
>    Bruce
The license is presented together with a well-respected attorney 
relation. Actually, the relation has been written by two officially 
appointed attorneys and finally evaluated and signed by a third 
attorney, Gaetano Tasca (the chief attorney in the agency).

The relation has been translated in English by me, but I have posted the 
original copy together with my translation.

The relation has been provided by the following Attorney associated 
consulting agency: http://www.studiolegaletasca.com/e_index.php

It's one of the most respected Commercial & Company related business 
attorney in my country.

This information is stated in the submission that is indicated in the 
Committee mail:

http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:826:naokadpjdjicihdgloog

Maybe, it's not a perfect work, but liquidating this license as "legal 
trash" is very probably inaccurate.

Moreover, the comment seems not to take into consideration the fact 
(which is prominently stated in the submission) that legal stuff was 
done before submitting the license; which is written in the very first 
lines of the submission mail.

Bests,
GN.