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

J. Ritchey x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 20:35:38 UTC 2021

I'm explaining how it may be interpreted, and why the licenses's dependence
on that is a design feature. I'm not saying I'm right, and reviewers are
wrong. I'm just putting in my 2 cents by participating in the discussion
with explanations for why the license does one thing or another, or any
other information I feel is relevant to points made. It is not my intention
to rub anyone the wrong way, or so to speak.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Joshua Gay <j.gay at ieee.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 11:28 AM J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because the license is designed to be short, it doesn't define terms (eg:
>> "lawful"). Instead it binds to a jurisdiction to set precedence for how a
>> term may be interpreted. For example the Copyright Act itself uses the
>> terms lawful, unlawful, and lawfully. So does the Criminal Code. The term
>> lawful is also used in the Constitution Acts going back as far as 1867.
>> It's important to note that none of these define the term either, but they
>> are citable examples of established use. In comparable licenses which don't
>> bind to a jurisdiction, or include definitions, a term might seem clear to
>> the reader, and then be interpreted differently by the law, especially if
>> the licensor, and licensee are from different places. In this instance,
>> lawful would seem to mean permitted by law which is the intent. As for what
>> actions would be considered lawful, that would depend on what is being
>> licensed, because that determines which laws are relevant. If you're using
>> the license on a copyrighted work then the Copyright Act would be
>> applicable to what is lawful. On a patented work the Patent Act would be.
>> Etc. You do raise a good point though that it's questionable whether the
>> license is actually extending rights defined in such acts, or merely
>> reminding people they have to adhere to them.
> At this point in the conversation, you are now explaining how courts would
> interpret the term "lawful" when reading this license in response to
> statements made by some of the most experienced and best lawyers in the
> area of intellectual property law in the world.
> That is fine, especially if there is merit to your argument, and IANAL and
> I don't pretend to be. I just wanted to make sure you understood your
> audience as your explanations could easily be read as condescending and
> authoritative, and I am not sure if that is your intent.
> Best,
> Josh
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210221/9489cefb/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list