[License-review] Some notes for license submitters

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-20 00:06, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I agree with the point that OSI, and OSI-approved licenses, shouldn't stay
> trapped in amber, but I have to take issue with the idea that the problem
> is specific to open source and that outside of open source, software
> licenses have changed radically to adapt to changing technological and
> economic circumstances. At least, I don't think I've seen this in
> proprietary commercial software licenses at all, beyond the fact that
> negotiated agreements can address specific issues and circumstances in ways
> that form agreements are less likely to. I'm generally struck by how
> conservative, technically and perhaps legally clueless and hidebound
> contemporary proprietary software license agreements tend to be - though
> not in the same way as open source licenses, which are vulnerable to
> similar criticisms.

Moth-bitten software-license forms are a steady source of
grief in my practice.  But I'd give the profession slightly
more credit.  Software-license and software-as-service terms
are now evolving in parallel, responsive to industry change.

Bad forms and lazy practitioners still grant copyright
licenses for SaaS that customers will never actually copy.
But I've also seen big and nicely done services contracts
for which the profession's generic change management,
insurance, risk-shifting, and other elemental know-how
buttressed a "software" deal in a big way.

Mostly, though, yeah, it's a tire fire.

I've accepted my small part in it, and started my own little
path to redemption.

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933