[License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11

[J. Ritchey]

I'm aware that some countries prevent disclaiming everything which is why I
list specific things in brackets instead of only saying everything. Sort of
a security through layers approach.

The specific problem my license tries to solve is that I couldn't find any
license that met my desires completely so I made my own. While there are
similar licenses available none provide all of the same features, and some
use wording I dislike.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:09 PM Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:

> J. Ritchey dixit:
>
> >I don't have the legal authority to permit unlawful usage, nor does any
>
> The distinction between lawful usage and unlawful usage is not the
> important one here.
>
> Lawful use of a copyrighted work is that which you can do without
> a licence at first (e.g. the USA-specific “fair use”, a limited
> amount of private and backup copies, etc).
>
> A licence permitting lawful use is basically not a licence, as
> anything that normally falls under lawful use is, well, already
> permitted by law ;-) Copyright licences have to be rather specific
> in what they grant (it’s a little tricky extending this to yet
> unknown uses, as in a permissive licence, but the “usual” list
> you find in most licences is a pretty good start); they also
> cannot grant everything (e.g. certain moral rights are very
> tricky to waive), just as a disclaimer cannot disclaim everything
> (at least in the EU you’re always liable for damage you cause
> willfully¹ or with gross negligence; if you try to disclaim them
> your disclaimer may become invalid, in which case normal product
> warranties (6 months at a minimum) apply, see EUPL).
>
> ① Not sure whether the English term “willful damage” is the same
>   so I tried to avoid using it; IANAL, TINLA.
>
> As an aside: what specific problems is your licence supposed to
> be solving? I’ve recently had to deal with cases where the licence
> permitted an intermediate to not reproduce it; the work in question
> was deemed inacceptable for (further) redistribution until the
> licence text was restored because without an explicit grant the work
> must (per Berne Convention) be treated as if it were an unlicenced
> work. Licence audits require an audit trail or a trail of grants to
> be present (so it can be checked to avoid unlicenced works, whether
> the licences fit together (e.g. no Apache2+GPLv2-only) and are
> acceptable to the entity checking it).
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
>
> ObPlug: http://www.mirbsd.org/MirOS-Licence.htm is OSI-certified,
>         less than 1 KiB in size, and maybe it can fit your needs,
>         given what I commented regarding the requirement to repro‐
>         duce the licence text or grant itself?
> --
> I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
> when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
> them.
> If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
> existence.              -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210214/0b45cb4c/attachment.html>