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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Pamela Chestek wrote:
> Someone recently persuaded me that a choice of law provision is beneficial
> to the extent it provides certainty. Without it, you have no idea what law
> might apply and therefore no way to evaluate the risk.

Choice of law clauses have always tempted FOSS license drafters.  Good FOSS
license drafters resist the temptation — knowing that it'll cause more
trouble than help.  It's actually a shame (IMO) that OSI considers any
“choice of law” clause acceptable at all in FOSS licenses.

Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> However, in
>> general business with end users, consumer protection normally
>> says that the law to be used is that of the end user, if it’s
>> not B2B anyway. Isn’t this kinda the same with the licences?
>> Whom does OSI wish to protect more, considering both sides may
>> be either private individuals or big companies…

A “choice of law” clause is frankly an unbelievably easy way to disrupt
egalitarian FOSS license enforcement around the world, be it by consumers
or anyone else.  Original licensors and/or license drafters shouldn't have
that kind of power in the FOSS community.  It's a pity the FOSS licensing
community didn't start saying earlier that choice of law was a non-starter.
We'd have been saved from the disaster of Oracle's CDDL, among other
bad licenses.

 -- bkuhn