[License-review] Approval: Open Innovation License v2.0

[Andrew Nassief]

Hello, I have made a version 2.0 of my license on GitHub:
https://github.com/StarkDrones/OPNL/tree/main/Version%202

The text is as follows:
The Open Innovation License

*Version 2, 28th December 2020*
*Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation*
*Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal*
Preamble

The *Stark Drones Corporation* believes at goodwill, to build or release
technology for the betterment of humanity. Technology should not be meant
with the intention of harming a human being. We believe in 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. We agree at goodwill to promote the advancement of
humanity and civilization as a whole. We agree to a sense of adventurement,
edification, and the expansion of the human mind.

*Released under the Open Innovation License*

*Copyright © (YEAR) (Copyright Holder)*

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, published, or
even used for non and/or 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
and file verbatim, 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 after the preamble
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.

____

*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.

**I want to emphasize that after hearing the core concerns regarding OPNL
(Version #1), I have decided to create the preamble variation as suggested.
I still believe in the full merits of the first version, but wanted to
simplify both the license and OSI approval process.*

*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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201228/60250aa5/attachment.html>