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

Mon Feb 15 01:46:02 UTC 2021

I would like to apologize, but it seems some of my responses are getting
directed to peoples' emails, instead of the board, even though I've been
using the "reply" button. If you received any emails directly from me, my
apologies. I don't know why some of my emails are doing this, when others
aren't. I'm new to email boards, and thought reply would send them to "
license-review at lists.opensource.org". I'm going through my responses trying
to find which ones need to be re-sent to the correct address. This is one
such message below. Hopefully it ends up in the right place.

Says the Copyright holder. Only the copyright holder of a work can license
it unless they grant others explicit permission to do so. The 2-Clause BSD
license grants the right to do so under the 2-Clause BSD (by requiring a
copy of it to be included when distributing), but does not grant permission
to do so under other licenses. This is fairly standard practice for open
source licenses.

Please keep in mind that Copyright law does vary around the world. My
answer is based off of my understanding of the Copyright Act of Canada.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 1:32 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> “if you take code that is under the 2-Clause BSD license, and use it
> within your own work. The 2-Clause BSD licensed code will still be under
> the 2-Clause BSD”
>
> Says who?
>
>
>
> *From:* J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:43 AM
> *To:* mccoy at lexpan.law
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey
> Permissive License v11
>
>
>
> Copyleft requires anyone who uses your work to use the same license on
> their work. This license does not. For example, if you take code that is
> under the 2-Clause BSD license, and use it within your own work. The
> 2-Clause BSD licensed code will still be under the 2-Clause BSD. However,
> your code can be placed under the 2-Clause BSD, or what-ever other license
> you prefer. The same is true of the Ritchey Permissive License v11.
> However, the 2-Clause BSD license is a whitelist license. It protects
> against sublicensing by never granting the explicit right to do so. The
> Ritchey Permissive License is a blacklist license so it must explicitly
> state that you can't in order to achieve the same effect.
>
> "You’re welcome to push for approval and tell everyone on the list they
> are wrong and you are right" I'm not pushing for anything. The OSI website
> says submitters are expected to respond to the reviews, and explain things.
> So that's what I'm doing. Don't let the lack of emojis in my messages
> confuse you, I'm writing my responses with a smile, not anger. If you don't
> wish to discuss things, that's fine. I totally understand. Your feedback on
> my license is appreciated all the same. Regardless of whether I get the
> result I want from this review process, the feedback given will be useful
> to anyone considering using my license. So I consider this a win-win
> situation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:12 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> “blacklist sublicensing the original work under different terms” is
> copyleft.
>
> Under your construction, you’d have some sort of weird schroedinger’s
> license of some parts copyleft some parts not.
>
> Again, this is just poorly thought out and executed. You’re welcome to
> push for approval and tell everyone on the list they are wrong and you are
> right, but that generally is not an approach that has generally been
> successful, during the 15+ years or so that I’ve been on this mailing list.
>
> I’m going to withhold any further commentary as futile.
>
>
>
> *From:* J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:04 AM
> *To:* mccoy at lexpan.law; License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey
> Permissive License v11
>
>
>
> This license doesn't require changes to be released under it. That would
> be your material, not "the material". I have another license which does
> that, and it is most definitely copyleft. The purpose of the statement
> "material must entirely remain solely under this license" is to blacklist
> sublicensing the original work under different terms.
>
> In regards to the jurisdiction clause. This license is short, and short
> licenses don't tend to define terms. This can have unexpected consequences
> if terms are interpreted differently than expected. Binding to a
> jurisdiction sets precedent for how terms might be interpreted in a legal
> dispute.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 8:00 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure your summary of this license is correct. This statement “The
> material must entirely remain solely under this license” seems to be a
> copyleft obligation (or would likely be interpreted as such).
>
>
>
> I also think that OSI should adopt a policy that choice of law and
> jurisdiction/venue clauses should be disfavored without a significant
> explanation as to why they are needed, lest we get license variants for
> every possible jurisdiction on earth.
>
>
>
> There are other issues with the legal drafting on this but are not worth
> belabouring given no legal person was involved with this. Another policy I
> think OSI should adopt is that if some number (perhaps more than one) legal
> reviewers on the list raise concerns about the legal drafting of a
> submission, the submitter should be required to seek legal advice and have
> their legal adviser provide a response or redraft. There have been enough
> submissions recently with poor legal drafting that a rule like that will
> help focus any follow-on discussion.
>
>
>
> *From:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *J. Ritchey
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 13, 2021 4:31 PM
> *To:* license-review at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive
> License v11
>
>
>
> Submitting 'Ritchey Permissive License v11' for approval.
>
> License Text:
>
> Ritchey Permissive License v11:
>
> Subject to the terms of this license, any legal entity who receives
> material licensed under this license is granted royalty-free, perpetual,
> non-exclusive, permission to do anything lawful with the material which
> does not violate this license. Permissions are automatically revoked
> permanently from the legal entity upon breach of this license. The material
> is provided "as is", without implied fitness for any purpose. All
> obligations to the legal entity (including warranties, liabilities,
> representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees) are disclaimed by
> all parties involved (including the authors, rights holders, copyright
> holders, patent holders, and providers of the material). The legal entity
> is responsible for all consequences of sharing the material, and all
> obligations to recipients (including warranties, liabilities,
> representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees). The material must
> entirely remain solely under this license. This license is governed by the
> laws of the province of British Columbia (as they were on April 21, 2019),
> and the applicable laws of Canada (as they were on April 21, 2019). Any
> legal proceedings related to this license may only occur in the courts of
> British Columbia. The legal entity must be capable of being bound to this
> entire license, and agrees to be. If any portions of this license are
> unenforceable in applicable jurisdictions, this license cannot be accepted.
> The license text is provided under these terms.
>
>
> Rationale:
> First released in 2015 *(then named Comprehensible Open License)*, the
> Ritchey Permissive License aims to provide wide permissions, and ask little
> in return. It also strives to use plain language where possible *(this
> was the inspiration for its original name, and originally was prioritized
> above all else)*, and limit its size. The goals of this license are not
> unique, but the manner in which they are achieved is. That's what makes it
> a useful alternative to existing options, and is my rationale for
> submitting it.
>
> Distinguish:
> In terms of comparison to already OSI approved licenses, the Ritchey
> Permissive License v11 is most similar to the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License
> (ISC), MIT No Attribution License, Fair License (Fair), MIT License, and
> 2-Clause BSD License. These licenses are all short, and grant wide
> permissions. But there are important differences.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD license, and MIT No Attribution License, this
> license does not require a copy of the license to be included when
> distributing a work. This feature could result in downstream recipients of
> a work never seeing important disclaimers. Unlike the Zero-Clause BSD, and
> MIT No Attribution License, this license tries to provide some protection
> against that by shifting these responsibilities to the person sharing the
> work.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD, Fair License (Fair), ISC License (ISC), MIT
> License, and 2-Clause BSD License it provides wide permissions. However
> they use a whitelist approach (eg: you can do x, y, z), and this license
> uses mostly a blacklist approach (eg: you can't do x, y, z). This
> difference is important, because x, y, and z may not be interpreted as
> intended. A whitelist approach prioritizes protecting a work. A blacklist
> approach prioritizes protecting the freedom of people to use the work. The
> MIT No Attribution License uses a blacklist approach, but the difference in
> wording may make one license more appealing than the other to potential
> users.
>
> Like the Fair License (Fair) which refers to products as "works" the
> Ritchey Permissive License v11 uses the inclusive term "material" so that
> the license can be better used with things beyond software (eg:
> documentation, icon packs, etc). The difference in the definitions of these
> terms may make one license more desirable over the other to potential users.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License (ISC), Fair License (Fair), MIT
> License, and 2-Clause BSD License the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is a
> short license that doesn't include a definitions section like larger
> licenses do. Unlike them, it binds itself to a jurisdiction, setting a
> basis for how terms may be interpreted.
>
> Legal review:
> No legal review of this license has been done. None is planned.
>
> Proliferation Category:
>
> I suggest the "Other/Miscellaneous licenses" category, because of its ties
> to Canadian law. While the license isn't made for Canadians, this link may
> limit its appeal to foreigners.
>
>
>
> In summary, the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is similar to existing
> options, but differences in features, or wording make it a useful
> alternative. That's why it was made.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210214/98822a0c/attachment-0001.html>