License Committee Report for September 2009
Giancarlo Niccolai
gc at falconpl.org
Mon Nov 16 17:29:48 UTC 2009
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
>> Maybe, it's not a perfect work, but liquidating this license as
>> "legal trash" is very probably inaccurate.
> So sorry, the particular line in question, standing alone, didn't seem
> to meet the quality which I would have liked to see.
What particular line? -- if you refer to what was written in the
previous mail, that's just a line from a commentary, a set of examples I
wrote on the site; it doesn't come from the license.
> But you are correct that I should re-read the entire license. By the
> way, are you a professional legal translator? If so that would be good
> to know.
>
No, I am not; I clearly stated it in the submission, and that's why I am
publishing also the original in Italian for reference. However, please
notice that:
1) the license itself (where it differs from Apache 2.0) HAS been
written by attorneys skilled in international regulations (actually, two
of them; one of them was also the translator). Of course, we worked
together at the writing. I that the unchanged parts from Apache2.0 are
written by professionals too, and that has been generally confirmed to
me by the attorneys that worked at the modifies I asked to introduce.
2) I felt confident in translating the legal commentary as it doesn't
contain Legalese. It's a comment in plain Italian about the literal
modifications to Apache 2.0 and the impact of the modifications with
respect to OSI criteria.
So, I must admit that it is not an in-depth analysis of its breadth and
robustness in a court; however, the fact that the license was written
together with two attorneys skilled specifically in international
business regulations and checked by a third one, (the same ones that
wrote the comparative relation), which are, BTW, regular customers of
mine in my professional activity, would suggest that it was made to be
not a waste of time and money, and for sure, not to be "legal trash".
Even if I have not a certified legal analysis about the robustness of
FPLL, it was built together with qualified attorneys to be a valid
instrument.
If the need arises here in this discussion, I could produce that kind of
analysis too (but then I wouldn't feel confident in translating it
myself, and I'd ask them to translate that too. It's an extra service,
so I'd have to pay for that separately, but it may be worth).
Bests,
Giancarlo Niccolai.
More information about the License-review
mailing list