[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)

[Andrew Nassief]

Hi, the copyright under the date just implies the creators and authors of
this license, just how the GPL-2.0 License has a copyright notice for the
Free Software Foundation or the APSL-2.0 License has Apple, or the eCos-2.0
License (though eCost is probably a stretch) also mentions the Free
Software Foundation.
In regards to the comment:
The terms copied, modified, redistributed, and published are not
non-commercial by definition or nature, so the attempted clarification only
creates confusion.
This actually reiterates my point. I am mentioning *or even used for
commercial purposes within the context of this license. *because I want to
specify that this license allows for both non-commercial and commercial
usage. Most people wouldn't iterate as someone releasing a license where
the person who reuses the software must freely do it on only a commercial
basis where they make money for themselves as an entity. This is a stretch
by logical means. Even if somehow somebody did iterate that including ",or
even used for commercial purposes" as "only used for commercial purposes"
(which isn't the case), that point is demolished when I state:
Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing this
license is understood to be fully "AS IS", no claims are made in regards to
safety, security, warranty, usability, or other form of merchantability and
market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders, authors, or
publishers are to be held liable for any claims, damage or results from
usage of what have been licensed under this license.
When I state:

Said agreement which is within the last paragraph prior to this sentence is
meant to be taken as a general consensus, but not legally enforceable.
Again for context, the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends
with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the boundaries of being
legally enforceable and within the duties of oneselve's actions. The rest
of the license which includes the copyright notice and its context is
within a legally enforceable context. For secondary context, the rest of
the license refers to anything outside of that said paragraph.

I clearly indicate that the mission statement is non-operative or
non-legally binding. The lawyer in you states that if it isn't binding,
what is the point of keeping it in there. Part of the reason this license
was created was to inspire others to build technology for the betterment of
humanity. Lots of big tech companies that are being hailed as heroes of
open source engage insurveillance capitalism, child labor, and numerous
other things within the realm of being outside of ethics. Obviously, a
small open source license wouldn't change that, but it is important to have
conversations in tech about these sorts of things.

Anyways, I have made sure to explicitly state that the mission statement
isn't legally binding. That part is on the license. The whole document
isn't to be looked at section by section but as a whole. Many legally
binding documents have non-binding clauses or mission statements.

So my counter claims are:

- I wanted to explicitly state commercial usage as part of the list to
state that commercial usage is allowed

- I have seperated commercial usage using, ",or even" and with what was
implied prior

- I have also said no claims are made in regards to usability

- A core feature of this license agreement is the de facto mission statement

If you look at other licenses as well such as MirOS, the license states:

We believe you are not liable for work inserted which is intellectual
property of third parties, if you were not aware of the fact, act ap‐
propriately as soon as you become aware of that problem, seek an ami‐
cable solution for all parties, and never knowingly distribute a work
without being authorised to do so by its licensors.

Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/MirOS

Stating "We believe" and what follows in regards to liability is ambiguous
and non-legally applicable or binding to include in a license. I can go
over back and forth a series of OSI licenses that break the fourth wall for
lawyers. However, this isn't my intended case or counterclaim. My
counterclaim is that I have by technical means put a non-binding clause for
the part that is non-binding within a binding agreement. This can be done,
because the whole agreement is enforceable, so is the non-binding clause
thus not violating OSD. I made assurances in regards to which aspects of
the agreements are non-binding clauses.

I hope this answers your inquiries and I very much appreciate your feedback.

On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 11:36 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

> I've marked up the license to omit non-operative language below. If the
> words aren't meant to have any effect, they shouldn't be there. The only
> thing that can happen is that the words will be used in ways that create
> unintended consequences, so it's best just not to have them at all.
>
> For example, your license states "or even used for commercial purposes *within
> the context of this license*." I assume you believe you have defined the
> "context" as the paragraph that starts "The context of this license."
> However, that paragraph says the context "*includes*" keeping the
> original license text, etc., not that the context is limited to only the
> elements in that paragraph. The word "includes" must mean that the
> "context" is more than what is described in just that paragraph. A court
> might think that it also include the next paragraph, with "agrees to at
> goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of humanity not
> meant with the intention to harm a human being ..." At best, someone
> interpreting the license has mixed information - what is the rest of the
> context if it isn't what the next paragraph talks about, but the next
> paragraph is also defined as non-operative. You have created a document
> that is unclear, which may result in it being construed in a way you didn't
> intend. If you don't want the "Anybody ... human mind" paragraph to be
> legally operative, it should be removed. If it is legally operative, then
> it violates OSD6.
>
> The clause "or even used for commercial purposes within the context of
> this license" is unnecessary. The terms copied, modified, redistributed,
> and published are not non-commercial by definition or nature, so the
> attempted clarification only creates confusion. It would be like saying
> "add to the stew onions, carrots and potatoes, or even fresh ones." There
> would be no reason to think you couldn't use fresh ones, so it just creates
> ambiguity by throwing freshness in as a concept.
>
> What is a "permissive notice" that isn't the license text itself?
>
> You have three copyright notices, one that is "// Insert information of
> license holder," one for Stark Drones Corporation, and one for Andrew Magdy
> Kamal. What the license says "the copyright notice above version and year
> is meant to be modified," which one are you talking about? I can assume you
> meant the one that is "// Insert information of license holder," but what
> are the other two supposed to mean? Are those the copyright notices of the
> license itself? If so, that is very unclear and anyone looking at the
> license file would think Stark Drones Corporation and Andrew Magdy Kamal
> are authors of the code, not the license itself. If you want to put a
> copyright notice on the license, you need to make that much clearer. You
> could perhaps put it at the end, something like "Copyright for the license
> text is ...."
>
> Now suppose there is a license where someone has added their own name as
> instructed. So now the license reads:
>
> "Copyright © 2020 Copyright Owner
>
> Version 1, 10th November 2020
>
> Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation
> Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal"
>
> But you have an explanatory paragraph, that must remain intact, that has a
> whole description about some string that is "// Insert information of
> license holder" that is no longer in the license text. A reader will be
> mystified by that paragraph because it's not talking about anything they
> are seeing.
>
> I have pointed out flaws but you should not it as a suggestion that you
> can revise the license and it will be approved. My point was to demonstrate
> that it is quite difficult to write even a simple license. I see no benefit
> to this license even if you adopted all my suggestions; there are many
> well-accepted, commonly used permissive licenses and I don't see this one
> as ever reaching a point where it is an improvement on them.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> (919) 800-8033
>
> On 12/25/2020 7:50 PM, Andrew Nassief wrote:
>
> Hi, I would like to submit my license for approval. The LICENSE.md file
> can be seen on GitHub
> <https://github.com/StarkDrones/OIN/blob/main/LICENSE.md> with its
> available markdown. For sake of simplicity, here is the raw text of the
> license:
> *Released under the Open Innovation License*
>
> Copyright © // Insert information of license holder
>
> *Version 1, 10th November 2020*
>
> *Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation*
> *Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal*
>
> This project is licensed under the *Open Innovation License*. This means
> any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing this
> license within it can be copied, modified, redistributed, *or* published,
> or even used for commercial purposes within the context of this license.
> Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing this
> license is understood to be fully "AS IS", no claims are made in regards to
> safety, security, warranty, usability, or other form of merchantability and
> market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders, authors, or
> publishers are to be held liable for any claims, damage or results from
> usage of what have been licensed under this license.
>
> The context of this license includes: Keeping this original license text
> verbatim and permissive notice, as well as the copyright notice included in
> any redistribution of said project. Project is defined as what is using
> this license. For purposes of context, the copyright notice above version
> and year is meant to be modified for whomsoever publishes or releases "any
> code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation", so that they can
> include their information. After modifying, the comment saying "// Insert
> information of license holder" which starts with // can be removed. This
> current paragraph however, will remain in-tact.
>
> Anybody who releases software under the "Open Innovation License" agrees
> to at goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of humanity
> not meant with the intention to harm a human being. They agree to a prima
> facie moral duty through consequential deontology to understand that
> technology should be within the concept of moral good or outcomes that are
> morally right and/or ethical. They agree at goodwill to promote the
> advancement of humanity and civilization as a whole. They agree to a sense
> of adventurement, edification, and the expansion of the human mind.
>
> Said agreement which is within the last paragraph prior to this sentence
> is meant to be taken as a general consensus, but not legally enforceable.
> Again for context, the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends
> with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the boundaries of being
> legally enforceable and within the duties of oneselve's actions. The rest
> of the license which includes the copyright notice and its context is
> within a legally enforceable context. For secondary context, the rest of
> the license refers to anything outside of that said paragraph.
>
> ____
>
> *Rationale:*
>
> I wanted to release this license for a variety of different reasons.
> Infact, I made many posts in regards to why this license is unique and
> valuable, and found many developers willing to adapt this license through
> small innovation challenges. The license was made on the basis of promoting
> a mission statement on ethical technology within the license as well as not
> being specific to only software i.e. files, diagrams, data format or any
> other innovation.
>
> We also wanted to make sure that the license is adaptable. Many open
> source licenses require you to put tons of header files for compliance. We
> wanted to make a license that just requires you to contain the license file
> in your directory. While many other open source licenses also do that or
> follow in similar footsteps, we weren't able to find one that met all these
> unique qualities.
>
> Currently, a big inspiration for this license was the idea of promoting
> free and open software as well as a mission statement on ethical
> technologies. We found that many of the big tech companies that are hailed
> as heroes of open source or doing open source initiatives, built
> technologies that are harmful to human activity. A technically non-legally
> enforceable mission statement within an enforceable open source license was
> the way to go. We also made sure to go out of our way to promote the ideals
> of open source and free and redistributive software.
>
> *Distinguish:*
>
> I looked at a variety of different open source licenses. The standard
> being MIT, then BSD+Patent, ZLib, CDDL, CPAL, CPL, CAL, BSL, and the AFL
> license. I feel like MIT, ZLIB, and the Boost licenses focus on
> redistribution and code. Those are the standards. The open patent licenses
> and other licenses focus on derived original work. However, none of them
> tried going to the same extent I wanted in terms of being specific in
> regards to data formats or general consensus and mission. I believe this is
> an important thing to take into account.
>
> *Legal review:*
>
> Currently I have submitted this to SPDX as well for review through their
> GitHub/Website. However, the review time to get approval and receive SPDX
> identifiers can be many months. I submitted in November and decided to
> submit to OSI while I wait. As for reviewing the context of language myself
> and actual legal review, I have thought out reviews through my own legal
> council and self judgement as a researcher familiar with these types of
> languages.
>
> *Proliferation category:*
>
> I don't necessarily need to be in a Proliferation category as of now, as
> many of the licenses on your site are not in a category. However, I would
> eventually want to get into the *Licenses that are popular and widely
> used or with strong communities *category.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Andrew Magdy Kamal
http://andsocialrew.wall.fm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201227/b18b4ffc/attachment-0001.html>