[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7

Fri Oct 16 15:26:27 UTC 2020

Dear Kevin,
I wasn't clear with my wording.  I believe the license is complete subject
to feedback I receive about how to improve its wording or to address any
issues that it might have.
I'm happy to move this to license discussion if you or any of the reviewers
believe that is appropriate.  Should I do that now, or should I wait for
further questioning on this thread to get a better assessment of which list
the license is best in its current state?

I also should state that I'm not a lawyer.  The intention with this
modification would be that if fraud is committed the license would stay
fully intact... but the owner's reserve the right to sue for IP
infringement for the limited area of areas associated with the fraud.

For example, identity theft defrauds a bank rather than the owner of the
identity.  Some people argue identity is a form of IP.  So, in this case
the "No fraud" clause would clarify that the owners are not waiving their
right to recourse in damages caused by identity theft.

Would this intention be permissible within OSIs definition of open source?
If so, do you believe I should add clarifying language such as:
Fraudulent use does not terminate your license.  However, no legal remedies
for IP infringement are waived for fraudulent use.

-Alex

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM <
license-review-request at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
>         license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Anti-IP License (McCoy Smith)
>    2. Re: license review request (Simon Phipps)
>    3. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Alex Williams)
>    4. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Kevin P. Fleming)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:04:13 -0700
> From: "McCoy Smith" <mccoy at lexpan.law>
> To: "'License submissions for OSI review'"
>         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License
> Message-ID: <064601d6a3c5$3a973080$afc59180$@lexpan.law>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> This is an interesting concept, but poorly executed. Kevin points out one
> problem. Another is that it doesn't anywhere discuss source code (which
> would seem to violate OSD 2).
> I'd say this is one that really needs a lawyer's involvement, to ensure its
> terms meet the goals of the author and also satisfy the OSD.
> FWIW, I'm not sure how this would be found "unconscionable" at least under
> USA law; it appears to be something like an attempt to do a copyleft public
> domain dedication, which AFAIK, isn't unconscionable.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> > Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 6:29 AM
> > To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:18 AM Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Fraud
> > >
> > > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud. If you
> are
> > found guilty of committing fraud using any of the Licensable IP or a
> Restricted
> > work in a court of law, then your license ends immediately.
> >
> > This is a restriction on use, and thus generally considered to be
> incompatible
> > with the OSD. If this was to have any chance at approval at all, the
> license
> > termination would need to apply to only the limited usage of the covered
> > works which were involved in the fraudulent activity. If the licensee
> also
> uses
> > the covered works in other activities, which have not been determined to
> be
> > fraudulent, then those licenses would have to stay in force. My opinion
> of
> > course, IANAL, yadda yadda.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:08:09 +0100
> From: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
> To: mccoy at lexpan.law,  License submissions for OSI review
>         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] license review request
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54+s7yiJ2o55cwXW+QCjQKPyOFhg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I agree. This is a submission that would have been better caught in
> moderation and rejected with an explanation of the misunderstanding.
>
> S.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:53 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> > This appears to be nothing more than 2-clause BSD:
> > https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
> >
> >
> >
> > It?s not clear why you are looking for approval for an already-approved
> > license.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Also, you didn?t seem to provide the information required for a license
> > submission: https://opensource.org/approval, in particular, whether this
> > received legal review and distinguishing it from OSI approved licenses,
> > particularly BSD 2-clause]
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> > Behalf Of *Seung-Eon Roh
> > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2020 1:16 PM
> > *To:* license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > *Subject:* [License-review] license review request
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear,
> >
> >
> >
> > I?m writing to request an approval of open source license for a matlab
> > code for neuroscience data analysis.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Submission type*: Approval
> >
> >
> >
> > *License name*: Calcium signal processing for neuroscience
> >
> >
> >
> > *License*:
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2020, Seung-Eon Roh
> >
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
> >
> >
> >
> >     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >
> >       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> >     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >
> >       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> >
> >       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> > distribution
> >
> >
> >
> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
> > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> > THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
> > CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> > EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> > PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> PROFITS;
> > OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
> > WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
> > OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
> > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> >
> >
> >
> > *The link to public link for the code*:
> >
> > https://github.com/NeuRoh1/Calcium_signal_processing
> >
> >
> >
> > I?m enclosing a Matlab code which will be licensed for.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > This licensing is intended to support the supplement documentation of
> > matlab code for an article publication in eLife Journal. Please let me
> know
> > if the request is in a good shape.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Seung-Eon Roh
> >
> > Post-doc researcher
> >
> > Department of Neuroscience
> >
> > Johns Hopkins University
> >
> > Baltimore, MD
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/603e21d9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:47:35 -0500
> From: Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+ujgfOhjZQPEcuvsO1sbfCHzk68ZhYZt9R=
> GwrtdMRmWRv2Sw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Kevin:
> I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I don't think we need
> license termination for that section. What if the section merely read:
> No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud
>
> Would that change address your concern regarding "No Discrimination against
> fields of endeavor"?
>
> Also, thank you for taking the time to review the license. If we can
> perfect it and get it approved, I plan to use it in my company and
> encourage others to do so as well. Overall, I think the license has reached
> a stable point in terms of intent. However, I suspect there are sections
> where the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with any
> constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one comment, I
> received recently here is one question I have: Here are my current
> questions:
> Is there any substantial difference between:
>   a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> will be able to license.
>   b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> will be able to license that would otherwise infringe that owner's IP
> rights.
>
> If so, which definition is better?
>
> -Alex
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/60aa7659/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:59:23 -0400
> From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kevin+osi at km6g.us>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
>         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6
> Message-ID:
>         <CAE+UdorG=
> FKOCFbwEQq+ADJKoY47sFfSqRQu06Tr_-AJ-kMPcQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> If you're still drafting the license, this should be moved to
> license-discuss, not on license-review. Submission for approval should
> be for a license that you consider to be complete, and that you revise
> based on feedback during the review process.
>
> Regarding the 'field of endeavor' restriction, I'm not a lawyer, but I
> don't see how your suggested change would make any difference. If you
> tell the licensee that the covered works cannot be used to commit
> fraud, then that implies that the license is
> vacated/nullified/terminated in that situation.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:48 AM Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Kevin:
> > I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I don't think we need
> license termination for that section. What if the section merely read:
> > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud
> >
> > Would that change address your concern regarding "No Discrimination
> against fields of endeavor"?
> >
> > Also, thank you for taking the time to review the license. If we can
> perfect it and get it approved, I plan to use it in my company and
> encourage others to do so as well. Overall, I think the license has reached
> a stable point in terms of intent. However, I suspect there are sections
> where the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with any
> constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one comment, I
> received recently here is one question I have: Here are my current
> questions:
> > Is there any substantial difference between:
> >   a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> will be able to license.
> >   b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> will be able to license that would otherwise infringe that owner's IP
> rights.
> >
> > If so, which definition is better?
> >
> > -Alex
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/32717750/attachment-0001.html>