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

[McCoy Smith]

There quite a few OSI approved licenses (mostly older ones) with choice of law/jurisdiction/venue clauses.

I personally think these clauses are ill-advised, and I could argue that they are indirectly discriminatory (for example, user in Nigeria having to agree that they may be hauled into court in NY State is an impediment that a NY user, or even US user, doesn’t suffer), which is why I think they should generally be disfavored when reviewing and approving licenses going forward. There is, however, quite a bit of precedent on the OSI list going the other way though.

 

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Eric Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:16 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11

 


There's the much more substantial issue of "What if the lincensor cannot
use courts in BC at all."  For example, what if the potential licensor
lives in a country that Canada has embargoed.  It has been the policy of
this body that licenses that can be violated by a national embargo are
not open-source, because they violate OSD5.

 

While I think this is a good principle and strongly support it, it is important to note that a previous version (and possibly latest, I haven't checked) of the Eclipse Public License requires NY State as its choice of jurisdiction.

 

Eric

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210216/a2620306/attachment.html>