[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.

I replied:
> > 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.

Pam asked:
> How?

IMO, it's pretty obvious.  If I want to enforce a license with a choice of
law clause, *either* I end up asking a court in one jurisdiction to
understand the laws of a foreign jurisdiction (i.e., a USA Court trying to
interpret the laws of Germany, in the case of the so-called “Open Logistics
License”), or I have to take action in that jurisdiction, not my own.

This kind of cross jurisdictional mess may be just “another day at the
office” for lawyers, but for individuals who aren't lawyers, this is a
daunting and confusing proposition.  FOSS licenses are for the people,
not for the lawyers.

Also, if the laws (or precedents) of that jurisdiction change in a way that
is not friendly to FOSS, it locks all FOSS under that license into a bad
legal regime.  This reason was one of the many reasons why copyleft license
drafters have historically rejected choice of law.  Copyleft never wants all
its eggs in a single jurisdictional basket.

 * * *

CDDL, of course, had a choice of law (in part) to force it to be
incompatible with all FOSS licenses that didn't have them.  Certain
incompatibility with the GPL is now known to have been a planned design
goal of the CDDL.  Is that also a design goal of the Open Logistics
License, one wonders?

  -- bkuhn