[License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re: Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]

Mon May 6 04:39:31 UTC 2013

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
>
>> As with my opening comments about #2, I don't think OSI is well-positioned
>> to objectively evaluate #1 - one person's duplicative is another person's
>> "this is clearly different in important ways!" So, again, I ask: are there
>> proxies we could use for duplicativeness?
>
>
> This license-review@ list still serves a useful purpose, doesn’t it, even if
> we’re not always objective?

We definitely serve a purpose! But I think we're clearly most
effective when we're discussing reasonably objective standards. And
we're also at our least controversial, since there is reduced
opportunity to claim the board is playing politics.

> We discuss such “duplicativeness” issues (for
> free) every time someone takes the trouble to submit a license. If, after
> listening to us argue, OSI accepts the new license, an irrelevant new
> license won’t rock the world of software regardless of approval. OTOH, if
> OSI rejects the license, its author can perhaps appeal to some religious
> authority or just use the license anyway. It is this OSI review itself that
> often proves most valuable.

The problem is that neither the board (nor license-review) have firm
ground to stand on about what the rules actually are. We all know that
proliferation is bad, but the rules aren't spelled out - which is
ground for complaint when we reject things, as it should be!

> In either event, OSI is still relevant to license reviews. If this OSI list
> is not well-positioned to be proxies for a process that is measured by open
> source license adoption rather than OSI license approval, then nobody is.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this list should go away - it
(and the board) will always be the final arbiters. I'm just suggesting
that introducing another layer of community discussion, outside of
OSI, might be a good quality filter, particularly for these qualities
that have proven difficult for OSI to adjudicate in the past.

Luis

>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> Office: 707-485-1242
>
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
>
>
>
> From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis at lu.is]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:16 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen; License Review
>
>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re:
> Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote:
>
>> If the license could be interesting for developers in Europe or if the
>> license steward could propose it for software distribution trough the
>> European Commissions' Joinup.eu platform (this may probably be applicable to
>> most cases), there is currently one way for obtaining free legal suport:
>
>
>
>
>
> It is great that people can get free legal advice in Europe to develop new
> open source licenses.
>
> I also agree with Richard Fontana that we don’t want to treat open source
> licensing like a game that only the rich and their lawyers can play.
>
> There are also other resources available: SFLC and ifross come to mind. But
> yes, the general concern is a real concern. Of course, the alternative
> appears to be badly drafted licenses. I'm not sure how to weight them.
>
>  At this stage of our open source paradigm development, however, how many
> new wrinkles on license provisions are likely to matter?  I hope that your
> group will only provide legal assistance (free or fee-based) to projects
> that can identify a clear rationale for a new license rather than simply a
> new way to say the same old things.
>
>
>
> In my view, the wrinkles we might actually like in new licenses are those
> that solve patent problems, or apply in new ways to cloud-based or embedded
> or mobile software. We don’t need any more Apache or BSD licenses, do we, no
> matter how eloquently phrased?
>
>
>
> I personally have been frustrated by writing licenses that don’t actually
> rock the world of software; how much more such frustration do license
> drafters and license reviewers need? This gets back to our old argument
> about license proliferation. Too many amateurs and their free lawyers
> writing new licenses will only exacerbate that problem.
>
>
>
> And so, to quote Patrice-Emmanuel once again, this is the most important
> factor:
>
>> - explanations on your licensing project, why you submit it, why no
>> existing licenses does not fit...
>
> This is *extremely* important. And something the proliferation report called
> out in 2006 ;) In particular, it specifically mentioned new criteria for
> approval:[1]
>
> The license must not be duplicative
> The license must be clearly written, simple, and understandable
>
> These requirements were never formalized, but they've clearly remained
> relevant: I kicked off this thread by (implicitly) referencing #2; Larry and
> Patrice-Emmanuel are (implicitly) referencing #1.
>
> As with my opening comments about #2, I don't think OSI is well-positioned
> to objectively evaluate #1 - one person's duplicative is another person's
> "this is clearly different in important ways!" So, again, I ask: are there
> proxies we could use for duplicativeness?
>
> Luis
>
>
>
> [1] A third proposed criteria, "[t]he license must be reusable", has not
> been a source of problems, as far as I know, since the report was launched.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz [mailto:pe.schmitz at googlemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:02 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re:
> Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]
>
>
>
> Richard Fontana dixit:
>
>
>> ... access to good legal advice will be unrealistic to many developers,
>> ...
>
>
>
> If the license could be interesting for developers in Europe or if the
> license steward could propose it for software distribution trough the
> European Commissions' Joinup.eu platform (this may probably be applicable to
> most cases), there is currently one way for obtaining free legal suport:
>
>
>
> Path:
>
> 1. Visit the Joinup Open Source Software page
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/all
>
> 2. Hit the right button "Ask a legal question"
>
> 3. Fill the form and select the category "Questions on legal issues"
>
>    Example:
>
> "I may propose the new license hereunder to Joinup Open Source developpers,
> do you have any legal comments on the draft and rationale prior submission
> to OSI?"
>
>
>
> This is possible now, without formal guarantee of course (depending on
> workload).
>
> It is recommended to prepare two separate sections (to insert in the form or
> to provide on request to the Joinup team, if too long):
>
> - the draft licence
>
> - explanations on your licensing project, why you submit it, why no existing
> licenses does not fit...
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> P-E.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/4/8 Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>
>
> Richard Fontana dixit:
>
>
>>agree. Certainly 'cut and paste isn't sufficient', but access to good
>>legal advice will be unrealistic to many developers, and yet they seem
>
> I had Till Jäger from the ifrOSS have a short look-over,
> which he kindly made for free (though they normally focus
> on copyleft licences). Probably better than nothing.
>
> Might be a suggestion. If the prospective author has _some_
> resources, maybe the ifrOSS would be happy to negotiate;
> asking them probably isn’t bad.
>
> On the other hand, I don’t know which legislations they
> can operate in…
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
>   "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
>    the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
>                                          -- Henry Nelson, March 1999
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
> pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>