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

[J. Ritchey]

Regardless of which license you use there's potential for a legal dispute
to be brought against you in a foreign jurisdiction. This clause attempts
to limit that, and in doing so provide consistency of law the Copyright
holder can depend on. I wouldn't call that bad for everyone, but it
certainly could be bad for anyone who doesn't want to be bound to that
particular jurisdiction.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:44 AM Joshua Gay <j.gay at ieee.org> wrote:

> I recommend rejecting this license because of the following restriction
> placed on "any legal proceedings" seems bad for everyone (including the
> courts):
>
> "Any legal proceedings related to this license may only occur in the
> courts of British Columbia."
>
> Josh
>
>
> Joshua Gay
> Open Source Community Manager
> IEEE Standards Association
> (617) 966-9792
> j.gay at ieee.org
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:31 AM J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210215/2c35d01c/attachment-0001.html>