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

Tue Feb 16 00:58:07 UTC 2021

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 1:28 PM J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Your license binds all proceedings (related to the license) to Courts in
British Columbia and therefore does not permit such proceedings to take
place in a Federal Court in Ontario.

But, Sections 20 (1) and 20 (2) of the Federal Courts Act give
(espectively) exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction to the Federal Court
for various intellectual property matters. Further, 41.24 of the Copyright
Act gives the Federal Court concurrent jurisdiction with provincial courts
to hear and determine all proceedings on various intellectual property law
matters.

Often a license on some works/material might just be one small part of
larger, multi-claim legal dispute. Given the various reasons why one might
prefer or **need** to go to Federal Court (which is in Ontario), the
provincial restrictions of this license (requiring proceedings to be in
British Columbia), just don't seem good or appropriate to me.

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
Joshua Gay
Open Source Community Manager
IEEE Standards Association
(617) 966-9792
j.gay at ieee.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210215/c22a82b6/attachment-0001.html>