[License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11
opensource at LukasAtkinson.de
Sun Feb 14 12:16:50 UTC 2021
I would ask the Board to not approve this license: it leads to
unnecessary license proliferation, and likely fails to provide
sufficient software freedom.
On a meta-level, the submission of this license makes a strong argument
that submitted licenses should have either received legal review or at
least non-negligible use.
This license has neither: not even the license author seems to have
published any works/“material” under this license, though a few social
media posts reference earlier versions.
The proliferation problem is enhanced by the lack of improvements over
existing licenses. The submission identifies various differences, but I
don't agree with their value.
- The license text is not more comprehensible than comparable licenses.
The license is grammatically complex. The terminology deviates from
terms of art and well-understood phrases. Using “material” instead of
“work” is not more inclusive, since “creative work” is a term of art.
- I don't see how the proposed license would be better than Fair or 0BSD
at ensuring that recipients know about their rights and obligations.
This is especially relevant since recipients *do* have obligations per
“The legal entity is responsible…”.
- The blocklist vs allowlist approach is interesting, but has probably
not been executed correctly. The licensee is allowed to do “anything
lawful […] which does not violate this license”. But distribution of a
copyrighted work is not lawful without permission. This “license” might
not be granting any rights at all. Although the OSI has given legacy
approval to unclear licenses in the past (hello, Unlicense), such
approval would be unhelpful for new licenses.
Aside from the lack of explicit permission, the choice of law clause is
troubling, especially when paired with the inseverability clause. The
choice of law might be ineffective as constructed. Since various parts
of the license are likely “unenforceable in applicable jurisdictions”,
this license cannot be accepted.
More information about the License-review