[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

[McCoy Smith]

This is what Andreas said back in May:

"According to German law, one can only deviate from or limit liability to a
very limited extent by means of general terms and conditions. Assuming that
open source software is handed over as a gift, we fortunately no longer have
comprehensive liability for simple negligence, but "only" the liability
specified in the licence (under German laws). However, it is not possible to
further deviate from this liability in favour of the potentially liable
party."

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
022-May/005256.html

I'm not a German attorney, but it's my understanding that certain warranties
or liabilities cannot be disclaimed in German law. This is the same in other
law, including the US. The end result of most FOSS licenses is they have the
effect of disclaiming whatever under the local law can be disclaimed, but
the local law will impose liabilities where they cannot be disclaimed.

It might be helpful for this discussion if there were some reference to
something (statute, case law) that obligates that a disclaimer in Germany be
styled in the particular way this license, since it certainly impacts the
enforcement of FOSS licenses in Germany (for which there is quite a bit of
precedent). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Bradley M. Kuhn
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 9:38 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-
> review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2
> 
> Pam and Carlo have made some good legal critiques.  My critiques are
purely
> policy-related (IANAL):
> 
> Andreas Nettsträter wrote:
> > The Open Logistics License is based on Apache v2 but has been modified
> > to comply with German law (as a representative for "European" law).
> 
> If it really is true that existing FOSS licenses such as ASLv2 (or for
that matter,
> copyleft-next or GPL) do not comply with German law, then we should focus
> our efforts to redraft those licenses and release new versions so that
they
> comply with German law.
> 
> > Proliferation category:
> > Our proposal would be: Special purpose license.
> 
> What's the special purpose?  Compliance with German Law?  Again, if
> existing FOSS licenses are determined to *not* comply with German law, we
> have a huge problem in a major municipality in the world.  If existing
FOSS
> licenses *do* comply with German law, then this is pure license
proliferation.
> 
> --
> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
> 
> Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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