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

[Lawrence Rosen]

I wrote this provision in OSL 3.0 because I thought it would be more fair to
the licensor of the software, who created it and donated it to the world:

 

"Any action or suit relating to this License may be brought only in the
courts of a jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which Licensor
conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that jurisdiction
excluding its conflict-of-law provisions."

 

For most large companies that license their software, this includes most
countries where they conduct their "primary business" and where their
licensees presumably exist. The provision has an obviously more limiting
effect for small licensors who shouldn't have to chase around the world to
find bad licensees.

 

Choice of jurisdiction isn't just an afterthought. Brad Kuhn wrote: "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." Brad is wrong.

 

/Larry 

 

Lawrence Rosen

707-478-8932

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

 

-----Original Message-----
From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf
Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 2:40 PM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

 

 

On 12/12/2022 2:01 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

> Pam,

> 

> Just to pipe in as a practitioner, not a lawyer. One of the major 

> differences between EPL-1.0 and EPL-2.0 was the removal of the 

> license's choice of law provision. We spent something like 15 years 

> arguing that the certainty provided by the choice of law provision was 

> valuable. I don't remember winning that argument once in all that 

> time. In my experience, both adopters and contributors viewed the 

> choice of law as a negative.

> 

> I would also add that if you sort open source licenses by usage you 

> will find that something like 95%++ of all free and open source 

> software is currently made available under licenses which do not have 

> a choice of law provision. So as a purely practical matter I consider 

> this debate settled in favor of do not have a choice of law provision.

> 

I don't disagree that it seems disfavored, but I was curious why, especially
after someone challenged me and I didn't have a good answer. 

And the reason seems to still be ... just because?

 

Pam

 

Pamela S. Chestek

Chestek Legal

PO Box 2492

Raleigh, NC 27602

 <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com> pamela at chesteklegal.com

(919) 800-8033

 <http://www.chesteklegal.com> www.chesteklegal.com

 

_______________________________________________

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

 <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
License-review at lists.opensource.org

 
<http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensourc
e.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/20221212/efd12de5/attachment.html>